The 1% are parasites. — StreetlightX

I had kind of a funny thought today: What if you were to make one of those overlapping pie charts with "nazi" on one end and "radical far left" on the other: Don't you think calling certain segments of the population "parasites" would go in the overlapping middle portion? What else would go in that portion? Maybe dressing in all black? Wishing death and suffering upon those whom you disagree with politically? Assaulting journalists? In any case, labeling certain segments of the population "parasites" would certain fit the bill. At this point you might as well just move on to referring to them as "life undeserving of life."

had kind of a funny thought today — BitconnectCarlos

You didn't have a funny thought. You had entirely unoriginal thought regularly regurgitated by those whose depth of political analysis starts and stops at the way people dress.

Well in all fairness you weren't exactly my target audience here. I wouldn't have expected you to be entertained.

I had kind of a funny thought today: What if you were to make one of those overlapping pie charts with "nazi" on one end and "radical far left" on the other: Don't you think calling certain segments of the population "parasites" would go in the overlapping middle portion? What else would go in that portion? — BitconnectCarlos

Having noses? Your point is?

Oh I was entertained, just not the way you think. Imagine comparing extreme wealth - an utterly extrinsic, completely contingent, socially bestowed institutional device that defines nothing whatsoever about you - to racial qualities. It takes a kind of oblivious imbecility that one can only laugh at in pity.

I suppose your 'target audience' is the kind who would appreciate trite pseudo-analogies that only work if you're a moron enough to not see through their cynical disingenuity. On that, I concede.

What is "extreme wealth?" What do you think about Bernie Sanders, he's a 1% last time I checked. Where is the cut off point in wealth where it becomes "excessive."

Ah yeah, you're the kind of person to ask if age is 'just a number' and 'what's the cut off point?' for that. But as a heuristic let's say at the point at which upward distribution of wealth robs roughly $50 trillion from the rest of society.

And if you're counting the US only, Bernie's not 1% although definitely in the top 10%. Don't particularly have any stake in defending him on this so if he belongs to the parasite class then so be it.

And if you're counting the US only, Bernie's not 1% although definitely in the top 10%. — StreetlightX

Top 1% starts at around $10mm-$11mm net worth, of which Bernie is a part of. But doesn't $10mm seem excessive? Why should anyone be allowed to have $10MM? Maybe 5 or even 1mm is excessive when you have homeless people living on the streets.

Wealth, defined as having above and beyond what is for all intents and purposes needed, is by its very nature "excessive."

Why should anyone be allowed to have $10MM? Maybe 5 or even 1mm is excessive when you have homeless people living on the streets. — BitconnectCarlos

Welcome to the club, comrade.

Nice, do I get one of those green caps with the red star?

In any case, I wonder if you'd extend the same line of thinking to organs: Plenty of people need organs, for example a kidney, and you don't need two kidneys to live. Could we forcibly harvest them from people if we can't find volunteers?

Again with the confusion of arbitrary social constructs with - this time - literal organs. It's such a strange pathological compulsion: this idea that wealth is somehow intrinsic to a person's being. Guess it's what happens when you're inundated with capitalist propaganda your whole life. First race, now this. On the edge of my seat wondering what you'll come up with next.

Could we forcibly harvest them from people if we can't find volunteers? — BitconnectCarlos

The Chinese govt does that with political prisoners. After they claimed they'd stopped, watchdog groups say the number of transplants taking place indicates theyre still doing it. I don't think it reflects communism, though. Does it?

So how much wealth should individuals or families be allowed to have at any given time? How do we decide that limit? What happens if they exceed that limit? Do we arrest them? Does everyone just start with the same amount?

Wealth is an indicator, a symptom. What matters more are both the means of production and the social and political systems which constrain and enable the use of wealth. Quality, not quantity. In any case I'm not here to play twenty questions while you act as a apologist cuck for the super rich. You drew a lazy analogy regularly trotted out by those who base their politics on skin deep comparisons and I pointed it out for what it was - that's all.

I don't think the analogy is lazy. I think it brings up an important point about how two supposedly very different groups use similar dehumanizing and inflammatory language towards certain segments of society and then get defensive after getting called out about it.

Top 1% starts at around $10mm-$11mm net worth, of which Bernie is a part of. But doesn't $10mm seem excessive? Why should anyone be allowed to have $10MM? Maybe 5 or even 1mm is excessive when you have homeless people living on the streets.

It would be excessive if wealth was fixed and finite. If that was the case, one person’s gain means another person’s loss. But this is zero-sum thinking, a common bias, not much different in naivety than saying “immigrants take our jobs”. Wealth, work, jobs, and the factors of production are not finite, therefor any commie plundering of wealth is not only unjust, but also an indictment against their creativity and resourcefulness, the absence of which leads them to steal wealth from others instead of creating themselves.

I was putting on my leftist hat in this instance when talking with Streetlight. Sometimes when you engage your political opposition it can help to try to step into their world a little bit and navigate those straits together - see what makes sense when you change your starting assumptions. That's actually one of my favorite methods of engaging people who are politically different from me.

I think it brings up an important point — BitconnectCarlos

No you don't. If you did you would actually address what I said, instead of playing trivia host. You're point scoring, don't pretend to yourself like you're doing anything else. You don't give a shit about your own point at all.

Address what you're saying? Is that an invitation to a genuine political/philosophical discussion about our differences? How far do we get on that one, I wonder. If we're going to do that I'd be down to hear some of your core beliefs and maybe we can go from there, but right now I'm not even aware of what exactly you're advocating for.

I do give a shit about my previous point though about the language. I think it's an important one.

Address what you're saying? Is that an invitation to a genuine political/philosophical discussion about our differences? — BitconnectCarlos

No, it was an invitation to address what I said. Which you still haven't. I'm sure you still think you've made a Very Important Point regardless. Maybe you want to pivot to asking about how to economically taxonomize Bernie Sanders instead. Was that an Important Point you made too? Like I said, you don't give a shit.

No, it was an invitation to address what I said. — StreetlightX

Ok, this is what you said:

Wealth is an indicator, a symptom. What matters more are both the means of production and the social and political systems which constrain and enable the use of wealth. Quality, not quantity. — StreetlightX

That sounds like an invitation to a full-on discussion about political or philosophical systems.

Ah yes, take the reply 5 or 6 posts down from your initial shitty post after you changed the subject about as many times and wonder if that's the relevant one. Who dropped on your head and why haven't you sued them yet.

What point do you even want me to address? Your initial reply to me was literally just an insult, as usual. Unfortunately, insults don't really leave you much to respond to.

What point do you even want me to address? — BitconnectCarlos

Really, don't worry your pretty head about it. If you really can't figure it out, I don't want your brain to fry from over-exertion.

If that's just your preference in terms of a corporate governance model that's fine. We all have our own preferences for how things ought to be ran. I personally don't believe in any one, universal perfect corporate governance model and in any case we're free to discuss the pluses and minuses of various models. — BitconnectCarlos

This is mentally lazy, to talk about "preferences" and "perfect systems." There are no "perfect" systems, and no one is claiming there is. To try to spin the discussion into a discussion of "preferences" is like a creationist arguing for different "models" of origins: the creationist model and the "evolutionist" model. "Just two explanatory preferences, nothing more, and we can 'debate' the merits of both." Nonsense.

Why not instead simply acknowledge that you're in favor of democratizing the workplace? (As anyone who professes to care about democracy should.) And if you're not in favor of it, then be brave enough to say so.

Are you even interested in any sort of honest political/philosophical conversation with me? We've had this conversation before - in the absence of genuine political/philosophical conversation it makes sense to comment on other features of a post, such as the types of language/the use of certain terms like "parasite."

Are you even interested in any sort of honest political/philosophical conversation with me? — BitconnectCarlos

No, I am absolutely not. I am interested calling out your shitty analogies for those who might otherwise be suckered in by lazy appearence mongering. I couldn't care less about your intellectual development if I tried.

As for "parasite", it perfectly describes a class of people who feed off the work of others while allowing their hosts to effectively bleed out in destitution.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Then why did you ask me to actually engage what you said initially? Was it just to waste the time of the right-wing enemy?

Then why did you ask me to actually engage what you said initially? — BitconnectCarlos

To point out that you haven't, and watch on as you flail every which way with irrelavencies in meantime - including this.

Why not instead simply acknowledge that you're in favor of democratizing the workplace? (As anyone who professes to care about democracy should.) And if you're not in favor of it, then be brave enough to say so. — Xtrix

I've already explained my position on this one, Xtrix.

All I believe is that businesses should be free to structure themselves however they like, with co-op included. In the US you're already free to do this, although things change when you want to bring your company public because you're now issuing securities and you're playing with the SEC.

As long as there's personal choice in this matter people are going to have different governance structures and I guess I "support" the ones that best fit the business.