From popularity in school to socialists and cooperation?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How do you get from this:

Why popular kids make more money as adults (http://theweek.com/article/index/235214/why-popular-kids-make-more-money-as-adults)

To this (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3725915#p3725915):


Most major activities require co-operating teams of people and of course social skills are vital to building and running teams. Even without taking a leadership role, getting recognition for your abilities and making an effective contribution to a group requires good presentation, comprehension and general communication skills.

A less obvious result, and which I personally find more amusing, is how individualists outperform socialists on challenging projects. There is a ludicrous notion popularised on this board of libertarians being unable to co-operate in any fashion while socialists automatically form a perfectly efficient hive mind. In reality, entrepreneurs and independent contractors need considerably more social skills to succeed, because they must convince people to voluntarily invest in their company, work on their project, buy their product, hire them for a contract etc. Networking and building relationships of trust with partners, customers and suppliers is vital for the success and growth of small companies, and management of perceptions, expectations and individual problems is vital to get good performance out of teams. Money is never enough on its own to get the best out of people and often there is not even enough money to match the compensation larger companies can pay, meaning social skills have to cover the gap by making people feel happy about their role.

Meanwhile socialists can only think in terms of rules that force people to do what is necessary; and they can never agree among themselves exactly what rules must be enforced. It is never 'here is what we can offer you, what can you offer' it is 'here are my rules which you must follow'. Any time a negotiation is not going there way, it is because it is 'unfair and exploititative'. They can survive in government beurecracies and large companies where they can exploit a mass of rules, are immune to being fired and continue to rack up a fat pension regardless of how many months of 'medical leave to deal with personal stress' they take. They cannot survive any environment where talented people can just walk away from their rules.

My first thoughts are that he is attacking a strawman of socialism, attempting to conflate it with an authoritarian managerial attitude, combined with an attack on workers' entitlements (hence his nonsense about "medical leave").

Never mind the logical disconnect between his statement and the OP. What do you make of this person's bizarre attack?

[Rafiq]

And it just so happens to be a coincidence that most popular kids are bourgeois. What the fuck is this guy talking about? I'm trying to formulate a response, but I can't, I mean... This is the definition of a straw man. What rules? What the fuck is he talking about? Where is his evidence? Is this sustained by a study of some sort?

[Rafiq]

Most major activities require co-operating teams of people and of course social skills are vital to building and running teams. Even without taking a leadership role, getting recognition for your abilities and making an effective contribution to a group requires good presentation, comprehension and general communication skills.


Where do those social skills come form? Your ass?


A less obvious result, and which I personally find more amusing, is how individualists outperform socialists on challenging projects.

Based on what evidence? Business projects? It's just a coincidence that there happens to be more petite bourgeois "individualists" than there are petite bourgeois socialists, no?

So... You're just declaring things. You've absolutely no evidence to sustain the assertion that "individualists outperform socialists on challenging projects". Because there is absolutely no correlation between the ability for someone to competently partake in a "challenging project" and their personal ideological ego. I dare anyone who sais otherwise to sustain this assertion with evidence. Fucking laughable.


There is a ludicrous notion popularised on this board of libertarians being unable to co-operate in any fashion while socialists automatically form a perfectly efficient hive mind. In reality, entrepreneurs and independent contractors need considerably more social skills to succeed,

Is socialism now an occupation of sorts? To succeed in what?


because they must convince people to voluntarily invest in their company, work on their project, buy their product, hire them for a contract etc. Networking and building relationships of trust with partners, customers and suppliers is vital for the success and growth of small companies, and management of perceptions, expectations and individual problems is vital to get good performance out of teams.

Who cares?


Money is never enough on its own to get the best out of people and often there is not even enough money to match the compensation larger companies can pay, meaning social skills have to cover the gap by making people feel happy about their role.


Just a blank declaration.


Meanwhile socialists can only think in terms of rules that force people to do what is necessary; and they can never agree among themselves exactly what rules must be enforced.

In order for me to make a clear response, do you mind telling me what you mean by "socialists"?


It is never 'here is what we can offer you, what can you offer' it is 'here are my rules which you must follow'.

And? Socialism is the weapon we use to crush the enemy, the proletarian dictatorship is not a compromise. You petite bourgeois scum will obey, or you will quite simply die. Now go fuck yourself and cry about.

I mean, yes, Bourgeois liberalism ideologically reinforces the ideology of capital in a better way radical socialism does. What of it? We aren't here to sustain bourgeois society or "contribute to forming a better society" while constrained by capitalist social relations. We seek to liquidate the social relations by which "entrepreneurs" can even exist.


Any time a negotiation is not going there way, it is because it is 'unfair and exploititative'.

Negotiation for what? Higher wages? Of course it isn't fair, but you're right, that's stupid, there shouldn't be a moral outcry: there should be direct action against the class enemy.


They can survive in government beurecracies and large companies where they can exploit a mass of rules,

And so reveals itself the logic of antisemitism. Have you any evidence that our comrades have infiltrated both the bourgeois state and bourgeois market organs? If you do, do you mind writing down names and numbers? I very much would want to get in on this.


are immune to being fired and continue to rack up a fat pension regardless of how many months of 'medical leave to deal with personal stress' they take.

What kind of moralism is this? You're just declaring things. Even if this was true en masse than: So what? Class conscious proletarians have no personal ethical duty to sustain your fucking businesses, moreover your dying system.


They cannot survive any environment where talented people can just walk away from their rules.


You've got it all wrong. See, when we "socialists" attain state dictatorship, a new 'environment' then it's you 'talented people' who won't survive, literally.

[Raúl Duke]

Meanwhile socialists can only think in terms of rules that force people to do what is necessaryblatant strawman


which I personally find more amusing, is how individualists outperform socialists on challenging projectswhere's the evidence?

If we go by history and nations...
self-declared socialist states have accomplish "challenging projects" and during the Great Depression, the USSR outperform the rest.

If we're honestly talking about individuals...lool wtf


In reality, entrepreneurs and independent contractors need considerably more social skills to succeed, because they must convince people to voluntarily invest in their company, work on their project, buy their product, hire them for a contract etc. Networking and building relationships of trust with partners, customers and suppliers is vital for the success and growth of small companies, and management of perceptions, expectations and individual problems is vital to get good performance out of teams. Money is never enough on its own to get the best out of people and often there is not even enough money to match the compensation larger companies can pay, meaning social skills have to cover the gap by making people feel happy about their role.blah blah blah

where's the evidence, the proof, concrete examples? All this is just one big assumption.

I'm already imagining this is the kind of person who thinks they're "really smart" by talking out of their ass and spouting stuff without any thing to back it up and consider that a "good argument."

[Red Commissar]

One thing I find stupid about this is how s/he starts off with

"individualists outperform socialists on challenging projects"

So what's the criteria on what constitutes an "individualist" or a "socialist" on a given project? It all seems awfully dumb to try and say "oh well he's an individualist because he worked on the project alone".

I'm not sure how he doesn't see the contradiction in blasting socialists for having a hard-on for rules, but then praises individualists/libertarians (which seem to be synonymous for him) for being natural leaders. Being a leader implies having to keep people in line- I notice that the role of employees is completely absent in his description of the idealized businessman/entrepreneur.

IDK seems like one of those people who see things in the awfully dumb individualist-collectivist dynamic and tie that to hte life and death struggle of the lolbertarians against socialist conspiracies

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Do not argue politics with an objectivist furry. No one wins that argument.

Sounds like sage advice.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

sub-culture innit.

'popular' kids = get their clothes from 'real' designer places, go to the most expensive/exclusive clubs, have a million best friends yah darling, get a range rover sport for getting a lower class second in sociology from exeter uni yah.

but 'popular' is a misnomer, much like 'popular' music, i.e. pop, doesn't exclude other music (rock, metal, hip hop etc.) from having popularity.

Loads of other sub-cultures are full of popular, cool, happy people, but yeah there's definitely a tendency that the kids of the bourgeoisie fit into this sort of Jack Wills sub-culture.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

the only thing I like about the Jack Wills sub-culture is that, somewhere, some hipster is just exploding in rage at how mainstream a sub-culture it is. :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Pirate Utopian]

I was and am popular in school.

[Raúl Duke]

yeah don't waste your time with an objectivist furry loser.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Any time a negotiation is not going there way, it is because it is 'unfair and exploititative


:laugh:


And? Socialism is the weapon we use to crush the enemy, the proletarian dictatorship is not a compromise. You petite bourgeois scum will obey, or you will quite simply die. Now go fuck yourself and cry about.

God, I love Rafiq.