Why should I care about poor people?

[NotACommunist]

The title says it all. Given that I have all the things required for a decent standard of living (enough money for food, mortgage, clothes, luxuries, going out at weekends, enough cash to pay the bills and still have a decent amount of savings etc) why would I care about those who do not?

Why would I willingly give up a large portion of my wealth to help others? What's in it for me? The answer is NOTHING. There is no reason why I should care about those people in the third world, or hell, even those in my own country who have failed to get a decent job and earn some money.

The distribution of wealth should be based off ability, not off need.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

The title says it all. Given that I have all the things required for a decent standard of living (enough money for food, mortgage, clothes, luxuries, going out at weekends, enough cash to pay the bills and still have a decent amount of savings etc) why would I care about those who do not?




Thats the thing though. Rich folk dont care. Thats why the tactic of "asking really nicely dont work"

But however they may feel an incentive to stop exploiting people while staring down the end of a gun.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why should I recognize your authoritarian property system?


The distribution of wealth should be based off ability, not off need."from each according to his ability..."

Or do you mean some abstract universe where effort is the only variable to success?

[NotACommunist]

So, you do awknowledge at least that there's no reason for the rich and middile class to support communism.

But wait. Wasn't communism about making everyone equal no matter their ability? Sounds like you just want to make one class of people dominant over another to me. :D

And Comrade Joe, if that is a threat, then my sword is already sharpened. Best not try anything on a school night though, wouldn't want you to miss out on your free education provided by the capitalists. :laugh:

[Chapter 24]

Because those poor people that make up the majority of the third world are responsible for providing labor to produce the basic living items and commodities that are exploited from them by the first world. I am not a "Third Worldist", but there is, to a degree, exploitation by the first world onto the third world. You can't deny this.


who have failed to get a decent job and earn some money.

Yeah, the reason why they're in such a state of living is because they're too lazy to get a decent job! Why, the high unemployment rate has everything to do with laziness and nothing to do with capitalism itself needing unemployment in order to survive as an economic system.

Are you another one of these Objectivist or Social Darwinist trolls that continues to come here and post the same question?

[Plagueround]

SOCIOPATH IN THE HIZZOUSE! :rolleyes:

[NotACommunist]

Yes, the first world exploits the third world. I have never doubted it. That's the reason why we're the first world and they're the third world. :lol:

Still doesn't explain why I should care about them though. I'm not the one who's starving, so why should I care about those that are, even if they are partially responsible for me having a good standard of living to begin with?

It's hardly like people in the third world are an endangered species. There's billions of them that can work for us, it's not like they're all going to die out overnight.

[Trystan]

Why should we care about you? Why should we spend our lives working for you?

Take over the factories! Dispossess the rich!

We're gonna get you!

[NotACommunist]

You should care about people like me because we pay your wages. :cool:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So, you do awknowledge at least that there's no reason for the rich and middile class to support communism.

That would be a queer presumption in light of the fact I'm both a small business owner and rich. Not wealthy, but rich by most standards.


Wasn't communism about making everyone equal no matter their ability?

Depends on how you're playing the term ability. Communists are generally supportive of ability and needs not mattering, nor are we interested in forcing people to join communism - although the economic benefits would mean that such a decision would be startling.

[Dr Mindbender]

The title says it all. Given that I have all the things required for a decent standard of living (enough money for food, mortgage, clothes, luxuries, going out at weekends, enough cash to pay the bills and still have a decent amount of savings etc) why would I care about those who do not?

Why would I willingly give up a large portion of my wealth to help others? What's in it for me? The answer is NOTHING. There is no reason why I should care about those people in the third world, or hell, even those in my own country who have failed to get a decent job and earn some money.

The distribution of wealth should be based off ability, not off need.

im not a believer in buddhism, but what goes around comes around.

Things will get so bad before people wont take any more and the ruling class will be out on it's ear.

Your ability to mantain posession of your wealth does not give you any greater leverage in wether or not you deserve it.

All capital without exception orginates from labour, and all labour comes from the workers.

[Dr Mindbender]

You should care about people like me because we pay your wages. :cool:

no the workers pay your wages. All your money comes from our work.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You should care about people like me because we pay your wages. :cool:

More like the workers pay you at a loss, unless the sole advantage you have other them is a special talent.

"Management" not being very defensible.

[NotACommunist]

Hang on, if you own a business, wouldn't you just have that taken off you in a communist society in the interests of everyone having an equal share of the means of production? Why do you WANT to give up your hard earned money just so a bunch of third world scum can take it?

The only ones that benefit from communist are the lazy who won't get a job, and the third world who don't deserve to have good jobs.

[Dr Mindbender]

Hang on, if you own a business, wouldn't you just have that taken off you in a communist society in the interests of everyone having an equal share of the means of production? Why do you WANT to give up your hard earned money just so a bunch of third world scum can take it?

your wealth is probably dependent on that 'third world scum'.

watch where you throw those stones.

[Chapter 24]

"Third world scum"? So you believe that the third world - which comprises of Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians - are scum? How are they scum? Do you think they are inferior because they were too "stupid" to fight off imperialists? If that's the case, do you believe these inferior beings such be killed?
And for that matter, why does your rhetroic sound eerily similar to a certain Social Darwinist member that just got banned? Are you a sockpuppet?
In either case, fuck off, because this forum does not take people of your school of thought kindly.

[Dr Mindbender]

"Third world scum"? So you believe that the third world - which comprises of Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians - are scum? How are they scum? Do you think they are inferior because they were too "stupid" to fight off imperialists? If that's the case, do you believe these inferior beings such be killed?
And for that matter, why does your rhetroic sound errily similar to a certain Social Darwinist member that just got banned? Are you a sockpuppet?
In either case, fuck off, because this forum does not take people of your school of thought kindly.

i have to say i overlooked that, that western-centric tone twangs of racism.

I would originally call for restriction but i dont think it'll be long before the hungry banaconda works his way here.

[#FF0000]

The only ones that benefit from communist are the lazy who won't get a job, and the third world who don't deserve to have good jobs.

Just curious, but why doesn't a third world worker deserve a good job? Just because they weren't born in the right place?

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

So, you do awknowledge at least that there's no reason for the rich and middile class to support communism.

They might think its fucking bang of order to exploit people. But no communism isnt really targeted at rich people for a reason.




But wait. Wasn't communism about making everyone equal no matter their ability? Sounds like you just want to make one class of people dominant over another to me. :D

Not really but im not really that bothered if a few bankers get kicked to death.




And Comrade Joe, if that is a threat, then my sword is already sharpened.

Can we have a Internet tough guy picture though?


Best not try anything on a school night though, wouldn't want you to miss out on your free education provided by the capitalists. :laugh:

You mean that piss poor one?

Better then nuffing but i suppose if i wasnt educated i couldnt make so much money for them.

[Labor Shall Rule]

You don't have to 'care', but they do.

You can ignore them, but they will identify the real roots of the oppression and exploitation they face, and will see the possibility of another world through the basic contradictions that they live under.

The middle class (by contrast) face a collapse of car culture and suburban geography, and are finding that with the rise in energy and food prices (and the costs of rental properties), they can not sustain the 'American dream' that their parents wanted them to hold on to. It's not hard (despite of your class placement by birth) to see what your problem is within capitalist society, even if you don't associate with 'poorer' people yourself. It makes it easier to ally with them once the mechanisms of capitalist production strike a blow at you too.

[Dr Mindbender]

am i the only one who identifies the extreme unlikliehood that NAC is beourgiose and is just a 15 year old middle class troll trying to wind us up?

[shorelinetrance]

am i the only one who identifies the extreme unlikliehood that NAC is beourgiose and is just a 15 year old middle class troll trying to wind us up?
75% of OI fits this demographic.

[Dean]

The title says it all. Given that I have all the things required for a decent standard of living (enough money for food, mortgage, clothes, luxuries, going out at weekends, enough cash to pay the bills and still have a decent amount of savings etc) why would I care about those who do not?

Why would I willingly give up a large portion of my wealth to help others? What's in it for me? The answer is NOTHING. There is no reason why I should care about those people in the third world, or hell, even those in my own country who have failed to get a decent job and earn some money.

The distribution of wealth should be based off ability, not off need.

Why should I care about you maintaining your wealth? There's nothing in it for me.

[NotACommunist]

I know that we indirectly owe a great deal to the third world- but let's face it, it's not like we should be grateful per se, as if they had the choice to do something better they wouldn't do shitty jobs either. If we paid them a decent wage they'd soon stop making up cheap clothes etc, which would be a bad thing of course. This would in turn decrease our wealth! :(

The sole advantage the rich have over the workers is we siezed the day and made something of ourselves, whereas they did not. If we hadn't oppressed them, they'd have oppressed us (which is what would happen in a communist society). Life is war, get used to it.

Ulster Socialist, well so far they seem pretty contented with their fate. They don't seem to be staging a workers revolution anytime soon. The average worker is quite happy to come into work, do his 8 hours a day, then go home to his wife and kids. Most aren't bothered about owning the means of production or any such nonsense.

Lightning- I don't think they should be killed, as that would mean they couldn't work for us. A dead workers productivity goes down quite a bit. :laugh:

Dean- you shouldn't. But why should I care about making sure those less fortunate than me have a decent standard of living?

[JimmyJazz]

wouldn't want you to miss out on your free education provided by the capitalists. :laugh:

He picks out one of the largest socialist sectors of our society and a hard-won demand of organized labor, free and mandatory primary education for all, as a support of capitalism. What a fucking idiot.


The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionizing the mode of production.

These measures will, of course, be different in different countries.

Nevertheless, in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc.

[Bud Struggle]

But why should I care about making sure those less fortunate than me have a decent standard of living?

Because we are all brothers and sisters on this earth. We all know pain and suffering is and we all know happiness and joy is and we all know which we rather have in our lives. Why not share goodness and happiness with others and let others share with us?

It makes for a better world.

[Labor Shall Rule]

You don't have to 'care', but they do.

You can ignore them, but they will identify the real roots of the oppression and exploitation they face, and will see the possibility of another world through the basic contradictions that they live under.

The middle class (by contrast) face a collapse of car culture and suburban geography, and are finding that with the rise in energy and food prices (and the costs of rental properties), they can not sustain the 'American dream' that their parents wanted them to hold on to. It's not hard (despite of your class placement by birth) to see what your problem is within capitalist society, even if you don't associate with 'poorer' people yourself. It makes it easier to ally with poorer people once the mechanisms of capitalist production strike a blow at you too.

The contradictions within capitalism exist, so the struggle for 'equality' and 'social justice' will continue whether you care about it or not.

[NotACommunist]

TomK- a nice bunch of liberal ideological bullshit you have there, but the fact of the matter is I'll never meet these poor idiots in the third world. They should move somewhere else if they don't like been exploited. If they don't have any money to move, they should deal with it. They bring the exploitation on themselves and thus do not deserve sympathy.

Free education might be a leftist idea, but it wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the money we get from exploting the third world. You think those teachers would work for free?

[Trystan]

am i the only one who identifies the extreme unlikliehood that NAC is beourgiose and is just a 15 year old middle class troll trying to wind us up?

His means of production:

http://www.woolgarstoys.co.uk/TY3789_large_dough_set.gif

[Plagueround]

TomK- a nice bunch of liberal ideological bullshit you have there, but the fact of the matter is I'll never meet these poor idiots in the third world. They should move somewhere else if they don't like been exploited.

I keep hearing this from the new OI trolls a lot lately. How do you propose they move?


If they don't have any money to move, they should deal with it. They bring the exploitation on themselves and thus do not deserve sympathy.

They do not bring it upon themselves. It's not as if these people just woke up one day, walked up to a dictator or crime gang that runs these operations and said "Hey, exploit me and keep me as a slave or pay me so little I'll never be able to afford anything and am essentially an indentured servant." Most of these people are exploited against their will, or they've had their previous means of survival ravaged by natural disaster or regime changes...they literally have no other choice and for you to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.


Free education might be a leftist idea, but it wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the money we get from exploting the third world. You think those teachers would work for free?

As if teachers get paid enough in the first place. It would most certainly be possible if we had a system where people worked together for mutual benefit and not profit. Besides, as I said before, if you became a teacher to make a profit as our system is now, you're in the wrong business. Some people do things for motivations other than money and are perfectly happy with their lives. Someday, if you actually even make as much money as your "internet tough guy" front claims, you'll probably discover how miserable and alone you really are.

[Dean]

Dean- you shouldn't. But why should I care about making sure those less fortunate than me have a decent standard of living?

I never said you should. We are only interested in the goals and activities of the working class and oppressed peoples; as you stand in the way, so you will perish. As I said: why should we care that you don't care for the poorer people? You don't come into our equations except as an enemy, and we wouldn't have it any other way.

[Bud Struggle]

TomK- a nice bunch of liberal ideological bullshit you have there, but the fact of the matter is I'll never meet these poor idiots in the third world. The BEST way to be a good Capitalist is to make EVERYONE consuming and producing Capitalists. We want to export good and services to anyone that can afford them--and starving children can't really purchase anything I have to sell. If we spend some time and money developing a a country we can make a lot more from that country. We make a LOT of money from China as they develop into a rich Capitalist country. They make us richer. Nothing wrong with that.


They should move somewhere else if they don't like been exploited. If they don't have any money to move, they should deal with it. They bring the exploitation on themselves and thus do not deserve sympathy. We should make them into MARKETS.


Free education might be a leftist idea, but it wouldn't be possible if it weren't for the money we get from exploting the third world. You think those teachers would work for free?Don't believe all that baloney about education being a Marxist idea--it's strictly Capitalist. How can you work in a factory if you can't count to ten? How can you do accounting if you didn't study it in school? How can you build a road if you never studied civil engineering? The educational system (at least in America) was started to get American Capital the best and brightest workers.

[Labor Shall Rule]

BEST way to be a good Capitalist is to make EVERYONE consuming and producing Capitalists. We want to export good and services to anyone that can afford them--and starving children can't really purchase anything I have to sell. If we spend some time and money developing a a country we can make a lot more from that country. We make a LOT of money from China as they develop into a rich Capitalist country. They make us richer. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, that would be the 'best' way. Adam Smith envisioned capitalist society through that the same romantic imagery, and with those free-market motifs.

But the exploitative relationship between wage-labor and capital means that a worker's wage and salary is low to ensure that labor is cheap (meaning that the workforce sometimes can not pay for housing, health care and human services, schooling, and taxes), meaning that mobility is weak.

The appropriation of the surplus value produced by labor - a fundamental of class society - does not end with capitalism.

[The Feral Underclass]

NotACommunist. I shall say this only one time. In future when you are "debating" you will qualify your idiotic opinions or you will be considered a troll and dealt with accordingly.

Consider this a warning.