Socialists are jealous

[graffic]

I'm in need of some good "comebacks" to these slogans, or slogans to counter slogans, that I encounter often - after a few too many beers on a saturday night, when the conversation can inevitably and unfortunately turn to politics, some unwanted, bizarre opinions and confused views can be vented by people I know and am good friends with. I respect other peoples views and expect people to respect mine and i will attempt to debate with people who hold views that I think are wrong or offensive etc. But the accusation that a socialist is "jealous" of the rich man pisses me off because it reveals a sort of ugly view which fully acknowledges and subscribes to the class system and exploitation.

I can see how some reactionaries can come to this conclusion, because there are *perhaps* many "angry young men/women" out there who are drawn to communism because it is anti-bourgeois and they are envious of the rich.

How would you reply to an accusation that revolutionaries hold the views that they hold primarily because they are envious of privilege? Or how much do you think this view is valid?

[danyboy27]

How would you reply to an accusation that revolutionaries hold the views that they hold primarily because they are envious of privilege? Or how much do you think this view is valid?
Personally, socialism is more about logistic efficiency.

They can call you jealous but there is nothing to answer to the awful waste of manpower and ressources capitalism and free market enable on a constant basis.

COUNTLESS of scientifics studies halted beccause of the sake of market.


Some socialist are jealous, yes, but some capitalist are jealous too.

[mikelepore]

I see two important characteristics in that jealousy "argument."

The first is that this charge has been made against every struggle against inequality in history. "The only reason you women want the right to vote is that you are jealous that you aren't men." - "The only reason you want to abolish slavery is that you're jealous that you're not one of the large plantation owners who owns many slaves." - "The only reason you want to abolish the monarchy and establish a republic is that you're jealous that you aren't a king." Since the argument always has this same role, in every historical period, we can see that it's merely a desperate cry of any conservative in opposition to social progress itself.

The second characteristic is that it's an attempt to draw attention away from the many social problems generated by capitalism. The profit motive results in air and water pollution. Competition for foreign markets and trade routes causes wars. Corporate interests have propped up many brutal dictators. The madness for profits has resulted in dangerous products to such an extent that it was proven in court that Ford managers intentionally chose to give the Pinto an exploding gas tank. Unemployment is one of the leading causes of suicide. Low family income is linked to school dropout and other personal problems. Capitalism causes hundreds of social problems. The defenders of capitalism seek a sleight-of-the-hand trick to distract everyone's attention away from that fact. The distraction they choose is to claim falsely that the case for socialism is based solely on the capitalist having a lot of wealth.

As an irrrelevant ad hominem remark, the jealousy argument is faulty in numerous ways. The two that I mention above are the ones that I feel are most important to expose.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Socialists believe that workers produce all wealth, so the capitalists do not deserve the riches they have - their wealth is stolen wealth. If a guy comes into your house and steals your TV, and you demand it back, does that mean you're "jealous" because he has a TV and you don't?

[ComradeMan]

In answer to the question I do actually know what G means.

I have come across many different kinds of "socialists" and not all of them are sincere. These are my findings, of course these comments cannot be measured empirically and must be viewed in their context as such as being anecdotal.

1. Fashion commies. The children of bourgeois parents, usually at university for whom dabbling with the "left" is a kind of rebellion and fashion statement yet they continue to live their bourgeois lives and when you scratch deep have quite reactionary values and/or modes of thought.

2. "Working class" "inverted snobs"- in a way an antithesis to the above, but people who say class struggle only in terms of attacking the bourgeoisie, bourgeois values and anything and everything they perceive as bourgeois- again they have little theory or practical knowledge and are quite reactionary underneath. These, I think, may fit into your "jealous" paradigm. I would sum it up as saying, they don't hate the rich per se, they hate not being the rich. The same people who bang on about workers and yet given half the chance would be no damn different themselves the day they got a promotion or won the lottery.

Not all socialists fall into these categories by any means. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these people are not socialists at all. It takes more than being able to parrot Marx and/or wear a Che t-shirt to make someone a socialist or not.

[Kayser_Soso]

Several good counter-arguments have already been made, but I'll throw in my two rubles here as well.

First of all, the "they're just jealous" statement is a ridiculous ad-hom; if we want to condemn people for negative human emotions, we could label the bourgeoisie as "heartless", "cruel", "arrogant", and "greedy", but since we are not children, that really isn't necessary.

The irony of this argument is that it often comes from those working/middle class white guys who tend to spend all their time whining about various things- something that could also be compared to jealousy. For example they may whine about the Wall Street bailout(this was a rather populist thing), illegal aliens supposedly taking their jobs or getting hand-outs. White males supposedly being passed up in favor of minorities in hiring and admissions. And let's not forget the constant railing against rich, East coast "liberals", their lattes, and French wine.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Socialists believe that workers produce all wealth, so the capitalists do not deserve the riches they have - their wealth is stolen wealth. If a guy comes into your house and steals your TV, and you demand it back, does that mean you're "jealous" because he has a TV and you don't?
Really this is the best short counter to the jealously argument.

You can add that radicals are not envious of the privilages of others because we want to do away with inequality not create inequality, economic exploitation, and oppression that is more favorable to us individually or as a group.

[Bud Struggle]

Socialists believe that workers produce all wealth, so the capitalists do not deserve the riches they have - their wealth is stolen wealth. If a guy comes into your house and steals your TV, and you demand it back, does that mean you're "jealous" because he has a TV and you don't?

And that is one way of looking at it.

Another way would be that entrepreneaurs create wealth and they let workers share in the wealth they create. Capitalist believe that both the businessman and the workers both should share in the proceeds of businessman's ideas and capital and the worker's labor.

Neither way is "correct" in any meaningful use of the term. Each is just a perspective on how people interpret the raw facts of reality. Either way of looking at the creation of wealth is a moral interpretation of the world. I'm sure we could think of lots more.

[Jimmie Higgins]

And that is one way of looking at it.

Another way would be that entrepreneaurs create wealth and they let workers share in the wealth they create. Even capitalist don't see it this way - you are paid a wage for your labor - there is no "sharing". If a businessman sells the product of your labor for 10 times the cost, the laborer gets paid the same. If the businessman doesn't sell it, then the laborer is still paid the same. That's how capitalists tend to see it.


Capitalist believe that both the businessman and the workers both should share in the proceeds of businessman's ideas and capital and the worker's labor.Again, they tend to argue it is a "fair" contract (I take the risk, you get paid for a set amount of time), not a profit-sharing deal.

I believe, however, that it is about as fair as being shanghai-ed onto a boat and the captain offers you a contract to swab the deck or jump ship in the middle of the ocean to find another ship with a better contract to offer.


Neither way is "correct" in any meaningful use of the term. Each is just a perspective on how people interpret the raw facts of reality. Either way of looking at the creation of wealth is a moral interpretation of the world. I'm sure we could think of lots more.There's no moral interpretation here - there's an empirical way to test it: we strike, stop scabs, shut down the business and then we get to set the terms of the contract because the businessman can not create wealth without labor.

Workers can create wealth in theory but are prevented from doing so because of the way society is set up under capitalists where the natural resources, land, and other means of production are privately owned by a small minority of the population. The businessman can do nothing to change the fact that he needs labor in order to produce. For workers, we just need to change the way society is set up and some laws.

[mikelepore]

And that is one way of looking at it. Another way would be that entrepreneaurs create wealth

The entrepeneur contributes nothing that is inherently necessary to production. Of course, if it's already given that someone has the power, then production won't occur until they command it, in the same way that the Egyptian pharaoh is said to have "built" the pyramids. Today the entrepeneur is the pharaoh of capital, and has to give the order before anything will be set into motion. Only if someone pays no attention to the actual steps of production could they call the capitalists's role of sitting back and giving an order "creating the wealth."


and they let workers share in the wealth they create. Capitalist believe that both the businessman and the workers both should share in the proceeds

If you want to call trying to raise a family on $7 per hour, this far into the age of exponentially rising productivity due to automation, "sharing" in the wealth.


of businessman's ideas and capital and the worker's labor.

Capitalists contribute trivial ideas. Any one of us could sit around and rattle off a hundred ideas like "faster airplane", "motor with more power", "new hotel", "new chain of restaurants", "new toy doll." The capitalist's assistance in the area of generating ideas is completely useless.

Where idea are more than trivial, the workers had the ideas, not the capitalist. In that computer you're using, the capitalist didn't figure out how to put million of transistors on a chip. The workers figured out how to do it.


Neither way is "correct" in any meaningful use of the term. Each is just a perspective on how people interpret the raw facts of reality. Either way of looking at the creation of wealth is a moral interpretation of the world. I'm sure we could think of lots more.

The capitalists would love everyone to believe that. It would make their parasitic role secure for another hundred years.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Here's a challenge for all those who think that capitalist profits come from "entrepreneurship", "new ideas", or other such fairy tales:

If a company passed from private ownership to worker ownership (but the rest of the economy remained the same), do you think the workers would continue to pay their boss the same as before?

If your answer is no, then you acknowledge that bosses are overpaid - i.e. that they exploit workers.

[Green Dragon]

Here's a challenge for all those who think that capitalist profits come from "entrepreneurship", "new ideas", or other such fairy tales:

If a company passed from private ownership to worker ownership (but the rest of the economy remained the same), do you think the workers would continue to pay their boss the same as before?

If your answer is no, then you acknowledge that bosses are overpaid - i.e. that they exploit workers.

The workers would pay the indiviuals who will replace the capitalists the salary.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=Jimmie Higgins;1652696]Even capitalist don't see it this way - you are paid a wage for your labor - there is no "sharing". If a businessman sells the product of your labor for 10 times the cost, the laborer gets paid the same. If the businessman doesn't sell it, then the laborer is still paid the same. That's how capitalists tend to see it.


Very true.



Again, they tend to argue it is a "fair" contract (I take the risk, you get paid for a set amount of time), not a profit-sharing deal.


Assuming this is the agreement, yes.


I believe, however, that it is about as fair as being shanghai-ed onto a boat and the captain offers you a contract to swab the deck or jump ship in the middle of the ocean to find another ship with a better contract to offer.

Hmmmm


There's no moral interpretation here - there's an empirical way to test it: we strike, stop scabs, shut down the business and then we get to set the terms of the contract because the businessman can not create wealth without labor.

Already your theory is frayed. "Scabs" are people who are willing to work for less than the strikers. As you say, the only way around is to ban people from being willing to work for less.



Workers can create wealth in theory but are prevented from doing so because of the way society is set up under capitalists where the natural resources, land, and other means of production are privately owned by a small minority of the population. The businessman can do nothing to change the fact that he needs labor in order to produce. For workers, we just need to change the way society is set up and some laws.

You need to change a lot more than that. There is, after all, nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned business.
What makes it socialist is how has to go about its business.

[RGacky3]

The workers would pay the indiviuals who will replace the capitalists the salary.

You REALLY belive that? Do you honestly believe that if it was up to a democratic vote amung the workers the bosses would make the same amount they make now? I want you to repeat that with your head held high, if you honestly believe that, then I don't know what to tell you.


Already your theory is frayed. "Scabs" are people who are willing to work for less than the strikers. As you say, the only way around is to ban people from being willing to work for less.

FI you look at it in context, its not that they are willing to work for less, its that they don't have a choice, this is why unemployment is good for capitalists. People would be "willing" to sell themselves into slavery if it meant eating, and yes (directed to Bud Struggle) people starve in America.


You need to change a lot more than that. There is, after all, nothing uncapitalist about a worker owned business.
What makes it socialist is how has to go about its business.

Again, its the context, we want to change the whole system.


Neither way is "correct" in any meaningful use of the term. Each is just a perspective on how people interpret the raw facts of reality. Either way of looking at the creation of wealth is a moral interpretation of the world. I'm sure we could think of lots more.

No its not, you can test this out easily as Kwisatz Haderach pointed out, just have a 1 man 1 vote test, and if Capitalists REALLY are that valuable then I'm ok with that.

Theres a reason Capitalists don't like democracy.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

And that is one way of looking at it.

Another way would be that entrepreneaurs create wealth and they let workers share in the wealth they create.


Yes, and the people who sign the peace treaties are the ones who "created" peace.

[Kayser_Soso]

[QUOTE]




Already your theory is frayed. "Scabs" are people who are willing to work for less than the strikers. As you say, the only way around is to ban people from being willing to work for less.

They are "willing" often because they have little choice. It's not that they are willing to accept a lower standard of living in a more advanced country- it often has more to do with the fact that they have families to support in their home country, and said country has very low standards for social welfare.

[mikelepore]

Yes, and the people who sign the peace treaties are the ones who "created" peace.

I remember reading somewhere -- one of the famous bank robbers of the 19th century or early 20th century -- he was asked what he thought the original source of all wealth is, and he replied: the banks.

[Green Dragon]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;1653553]You REALLY belive that? Do you honestly believe that if it was up to a democratic vote amung the workers the bosses would make the same amount they make now? I want you to repeat that with your head held high, if you honestly believe that, then I don't know what to tell you.


Probably not. Bit that has nothing to do with it.




FI you look at it in context, its not that they are willing to work for less, its that they don't have a choice, this is why unemployment is good for capitalists. People would be "willing" to sell themselves into slavery if it meant eating, and yes (directed to Bud Struggle) people starve in America.


But as we are repeatedly told, everyone has to work in a socialist system. So the "work or starve" buzzword is growing quite old and meaningless.




Again, its the context, we want to change the whole system.


Yes. The other note suggested it was more a question of rearranging the furniture. It is, in truth, building a new house.

[The Red Next Door]

Yeah, fighting for the regular jane and joe makes us jealous:rolleyes:. You know let me tell you something the working class are actually very wealthy in spirit unlike rich motherfuckers who are poor in spirit maybe you're the one who is jealous of us because we're rich in spirit and you are just fucking poor in spirit. We don't need a lot of material shit to make us fucking happy. the only currency i have is friends and family. The most best money that could buy you happiness.