Do you get things like this often?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

We should resprect their <American Presidential Candidates> authority because the majority voted for them. You're taking our German Merkel as an example - while I'm not a supporter of their party, the CDU, I have to accept her legal power. Also, if a party isn't strong enough, doesn't have enough votes (typical for Germany) a coalition is formed, usually of 2, sometimes 3 parties. And no, this is not my will - it's the combined will of the majority. Yes, it does often lead to stupid decisions - but you can't just set your own values and not accept social conventions. This will just get you in jail quickly, and yeah, that's also a reason you should respect their authority.
If you're not happy - try to improve something, get active, vote - if you don't succeed, move to another country. But inform yourself first - you will quickly realise that no system is perfect, the way YOU would want it. Or me.

As for communism - it is an ideal, an utopia - but it's based on the believe that people are honest, hard working and care about each other. That's utopian as well.
I'm studying medicine - I would not be ready to work so hard, so much, if I get paid the same as everybody else. Capitalism is, with all it's flaws, the best system we have ATM, people are being motivated to do something. People are lazy ad egoistic by nature. This is why, as long as we have to fight for resources and wealth, communism won't work.
In a post-scarcistic system, communism will be best. Before that - capitalism.
Just look at Germany - we have a lot of wellfare here - and there are thousands who don't have a job, don't want one, and they live better then those who work for a living (sometimes).
It's just not fair that people get anything for doing nothing, while those who try get punished.

I know that it's incredibly flawed and smells like Ayn Rand, but do you get this a lot from people where you come from? Do any of you agree with this weirded out, hypocritical idealist shizzle?

It struck a chord with me because it reminded me of some of the pseudointellectual arguments thrown around in my current workplace about socialism. There are a large amount of people I know who actively campaign for socialist ideals (albeit aiming their sights at the wrong targets - ah, fuck you nationalism), yet constantly fall prey to disgusting raptors who will spew the same old crap about human nature and how communism can never work with the exception that they use extreme political and economic jargon, some of which only extensive study within the subjects would ever grant the merit of having heard them, to represent it, destroying many valid arguments using this unfair argument of egotistical and condescending manner and promoting complete alienation from the subjects at hand just because a vocabulary-heavy conservative shouted unintelligible words at you (It's literally just an appeal to emotion using archaic phraseology).

How would you construct these purposely alienative allegations in a method that's easy to understand for the people around you?

[x-punk]

From reading this quote it seems to me the person who wrote it is more than happy to accept the way things are just now because they think it benefits them. They are a medical student (who would seem to be primarily motivated by the large salary) so they will probably have a comfortable and affluent life under the present system. Thus, they are going to accept and regurgitate arguments which validate the current system.

Also it seems to me that they are transferring there own psychological attributes onto the wider populous. This sentence kinda sums this up

I'm studying medicine - I would not be ready to work so hard, so much, if I get paid the same as everybody else. Capitalism is, with all it's flaws, the best system we have ATM, people are being motivated to do something. People are lazy ad egoistic by nature.

I know im perhaps reading between the lines a bit here but thats the impression i got from this post.

I will try and answer the individual parts of the post to the best of my ability but my theoretical knowledge is still quite lacking.


We should resprect their <American Presidential Candidates> authority because the majority voted for them. You're taking our German Merkel as an example - while I'm not a supporter of their party, the CDU, I have to accept her legal power. Also, if a party isn't strong enough, doesn't have enough votes (typical for Germany) a coalition is formed, usually of 2, sometimes 3 parties. And no, this is not my will - it's the combined will of the majority. Yes, it does often lead to stupid decisions - but you can't just set your own values and not accept social conventions. This will just get you in jail quickly, and yeah, that's also a reason you should respect their authority.There sycophantic respect for 'authority' is a bit off putting. Majority vote then forcing others to comply with that is called mob rule in my book. They dont seem to realise just how corrupt the political system is and how much control the bourgeoisie have. They kinda hit the nail on the head though when they say that people respect the authority basically because they have the force to make you do so.


If you're not happy - try to improve something, get active, vote - if you don't succeed, move to another country. But inform yourself first - you will quickly realise that no system is perfect, the way YOU would want it. Or me.Fair enough. Get politically active but staying within the confines of the current system and voting between the small handful of parties who all broadly have the same political philosophy is not going to change anything. But as i said early that is probably just what the poster is happy with.


As for communism - it is an ideal, an utopia - but it's based on the believe that people are honest, hard working and care about each other. That's utopian as well.Massively assumptive statement implying that people are inherently dishonest, lazy and dont give a fuck about each other. It would be better if they could validate such sweeping statements instead of just spouting them out as fact. Yes this is probably applicable to some people (perhaps the poster and his peer group) but certainly not all. What is certain though is that capitalism fosters these traits as it forces us to compete against each other. Communism is a system where co-operative action leads to a better life for people thus it could be argued that it fosters the exact opposites of these traits.


In a post-scarcistic system, communism will be best. Before that - capitalism.If the poster accepts that communism is better in a post scarcity society why the fuck isnt he pushing towards it as technological developments propels us further towards this.


Just look at Germany - we have a lot of wellfare here - and there are thousands who don't have a job, don't want one, and they live better then those who work for a living (sometimes).
It's just not fair that people get anything for doing nothing, while those who try get punished.The standard 'benefit queen' argument. If life is such a paradise on benefits then why dont they live off them themselves. They are universally available to everyone. There are thousands not working because there arent enough jobs and, of the jobs that are out there, in many the pay is so poor its probably not worth it. An horrific symptom of the capitalistic system which the poster subscribes to.

And if they think ditching welfare is a good idea then then what do they think the unemployed people would do, just sit in the streets and starve to death. More likely they might take some action which would probably not be in the best interests of the affluent and wealthy if you know what i mean.


To more specifically answer your question I think many including myself hear these fairly standardised arguments quite a lot. If you are asking how would i respond to this sort of stuff in a way which is easy to understand i would do it just as i have above. Using everyday language and concepts that people can quickly relate to, and not using obscure and complicated political and philosophical arguments which can drive many people away.