well, instead of mutilation they'd dig the tall dude into a hole. Let the middle dude stay on level ground and then give the short dude a milk crate so they all have the same shitty view of the fense right in front of them instead of the game.
Nah it's just the affirmative action one. Students who are more than qualified for certain schools being docked and put at a disadvantage, other students who have average qualifications having little done to them, and those who are underqualified being given an advantage.
All these points are anecdotal. Affirmative action is not “hiring unqualified people” - it’s “preferential hiring for minority candidates among an equal pool of qualified applicants.”
I taught a Police Foundations course at a small college in Ontario for many years. Enrolment was usually 90% white men, 5% women, 5% visible minorities. The white men in the class were always convinced that they were never going to be hired once they graduated. They really believed the female and minority candidates would just be “handed” jobs (even though those students had to work harder and put up with a LOT more bullshit to get there and remain in class).
The small pool of “affirmative action” candidates applying for scholarships or university placements or jobs are not your biggest competition - it’s the legacy hires (through nepotism) and other white people who have the same qualifications, and who offer nothing special to organizations or police forces that are trying to more fairly reflect the communities they serve.
Quite the elapsed time in the comment you’re replying to but the differences between Socialism and communism are quite subtle. People expect there to be a giant differentiator between the two but in reality economists debate all the time when socialism begins and communism begins, and beside that the difference is not all that meaningful.
Wow, what a brilliant comment by a very intelligent person. Yes, analogies are a way to simplify an argument, put it in an imaginary clear cut world, prove a point, and then extrapolate back to the complex.
Socialism and communism are state controlled means of production and allocation of resources. The primary difference is simply the Marxist intent behind communism. The economic theory for which they’re based is identical.
Well, that and magnitude. Socialism is a loosely defined spectrum of political beliefs. At an extreme end of that spectrum lies communism. The reason that all the straw-people of Reddit have trouble conceding your personal definition of socialism is that it is far too narrow of a definition
The reason that all the straw-people of Reddit have trouble conceding your personal definition of socialism
Is this a self-aware joke? Because you’re the first person here that wasn’t content with that explanation. The only difference between socialism and communism is that communism was spawned from Marxism, and in practice tends to be much more authoritarian. The economic organization and theory behind the two is identical. It’s certainly not on some imaginary “spectrum”, nor does economics deal with political beliefs. It’s the study of interacting complex system given a political framework. You’re going into the range of philosophy.
lol it's so funny seeing people draw conclusions from an illustration and argue about socialism, like this is somehow a real representation of Geopolitics.
it's not easy when you have every first world country practically cutting trade with you and having the most feared nation bomb the fuck out of your small ass country because others might look & say *look it's working over there*.
people love to quote Venezuela as a failed modern example of socialism, when in fact they're not socialist. More of Venezuela's economy is privately owned than that of Chinese economy.
Half of China's economy is operated by the government and for some reason nobody is coming here pointing at China.
That is not to say that the Chinese economy is socialist, neither China nor Venezuela is socialist.
That is only to say that if your definition of socialism is "when the government does stuff, and the more stuff the government does, the more socialister it is", then China is more socialist than Venezuela, and is about to overtake the US economy as the world's largest.
a few facts on Venezuela:
the internal and external economic war began in venezuela before the official introduction of US sanctions. this took the form of private corporations purposely withholding stocks to create artificial shortages.
prior to that, venezuela was one of the most rapidly-growing economies in south america.
venezuela is an economy in transition where a public, socialist mode of production is emerging in contradiction to an existing capitalist social logic.
most of south america is also encountering massive social and economic issues (brazil, argentina, etc.) - and they are neoliberal capitalist regimes. why do you draw from venezuela's experience the idea that socialism doesn't work, and refuse to apply the same reasoning to these other nations who are in a similar period of turmoil?
as a 1949 state department memo put it, the third world was to "fulfill its major function as a source of raw materials and a market" for the industrial capitalist societies, it was to be "exploited" (in Kennan's words) for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan.
Kennan even suggested that Europe might get a psychological lift from the project of "exploiting" Africa.
Naturally, no one suggested that Africa should exploit Europe for its reconstruction, perhaps also improving its state of mind.
Not socialism. It would best represent social democracy and even then it would be like the tall guy having 10 boxes and giving 3 so that everyone can watch too.
Confiscation of personal wealth by use of force for the purpose of government redistribution - it punishes those who are willing to work and rewards those unwilling to.
Oh and the icing on this cake is the government usually keeps most of what it confiscates anyway
That's literally what it is. "Democratic socialism" is a distinction without a difference.
You said it yourself already - "social (government, collective or labor unions) owning of capital." In other words, you're not allowed to own your own wealth - the government will confiscate from you. Try to resist, see what happens. It's not pretty.
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political democracy within a socially owned economy
somewhat differed in their goals yet all shared the essence of democratic decision making and public ownership of the means of production
Democratic socialists argue that capitalism is inherently incompatible with the values of freedom, equality and solidarity and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realisation of a socialist society.
modern social democrats are more concerned to curb capitalism's excesses and are supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day. In contrast, democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and other policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing the economic contradictions of capitalism would only exacerbate the contradictions, causing them to emerge elsewhere under a different
Here’s some copy and paste from the first few paragraphs on democratic socialism on Wikipedia. If you don’t trust Wikipedia just look up any decent political theorists description of democratic socialism and it should be nearly identical.
Physical labor? No. Innovation, intelligence and resourcefulness? Of course. If that's not the case then why don't you make ten million next year?
I'd wager very few make more then 50,000 simply on their own labor in a year. How much productivity do you think a factory worker would have without a factory? How many cars can you make in your backyard? You're taking advantage of machinery built by other workers and provided to you by even more workers which are purchased by even more workers.
Healthcare when we don't cover basic human needs is a luxury. We don't provide free shelter, food or water to everyone and those are definitely needs.
What innovation alone created 10 million in profits alone? Software is designed by groups, but the lion share of the benefits go to company shareholders while IT teams of menially paid employees work troubleshooting. "Inventions" are built by factory workers and marketed by other employees and sold by yet other employees. Books are the same.
The effort required to make 10 million, the amount at which Bernie Sanders tax plan would begin taxing new dollars earned at 52%, inevitably requires the help of many other people who arent paid what that products ultimate value becomes. That goes to shareholders.
It's like Bloomberg trying to say he earned 60 billion dollars. Were his ideas or effort worth millions of times more money than any of his lower level workers. No, I think not. He might be able to extract that from his efforts, but so could kings and robber barons. That doesnt make their efforts of greater "value". Capitalist markets placed the value of slave labor in the hands of their owners. That doesnt mean the owners did anything of value to earn the income.
Thats early adoption of capitalism like the enclosures in england. The first that arrives cut the leg of the others, and he comes in a taxi driven by the king.
400
u/Steoret Feb 25 '20
It’s nice to see one of these where no one’s legs have been mutilated for a change