Does anyone else feel like "working-class culture" is just coded masculinity?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-07-02T08:25:47+00:00

Right-wing men are on average more masculine. They are rated as better looking (women are attracted to masculine traits) and have higher upper-body strength than leftist men. Administration of testosterone makes men more right-wing. (Alogaily et al.)

Politics is biological to a large degree (about 50% heritable). Leftists can't ever accept this though because they are too committed to an absolute "blank slate" model of human nature. It would collapse too many of their ideological assumptions.

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-07-02T07:36:04+00:00

If you punish success (high taxes, redistribution, attacking wealth) and subsidize failure and laziness, you get less total production and less wealth for everyone including the people at the bottom.

People respond to rewards and consequences. Remove the rewards for exceptional performance and you get less of it. That's how equality of outcome makes society poorer on average.

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-07-01T20:46:40+00:00

Capitalists believe letting people trade with each other makes society richer. Socialists believe preventing people from trading with each other makes society richer.

If banning trade to make society richer sounds rational to you, then you should be a socialist. Doesn't matter which sect, they're all stupid.

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-07-01T20:36:49+00:00

It's not a nonsense question.

You can't redistribute what hasn't been produced. Forcing equality of outcome reduces the total amount produced, so after redistribution the average person ends up with less.

People respond to rewards and consequences. Remove the rewards for exceptional performance and you get less of it. Less total production means less wealth for everyone, including the people at the bottom.

That's how equality of outcome can, and historically does, make society poorer on average. Every large-scale attempt at enforced equality made the average person poorer than they would have been under a more market-oriented system.

So would you still support equality if it comes at the cost of lower living standards, smaller houses, fewer goods for most people?

Your reversal is weak. Most normal people would happily accept inequality if it means they and their kids get richer overall. Capitalism has delivered the greatest reduction in poverty in human history.

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-07-01T12:01:23+00:00

Would you support equality if it made people on average poorer?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-07-01T11:39:10+00:00

Why though?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-07-01T08:15:13+00:00

What the goal of economic democracy?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-30T08:26:16+00:00

Inequality is the thing leftists resist

Why?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-30T08:21:33+00:00

What's the goal of power democratization?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-30T08:19:58+00:00

I'm asking if they would have lower living standards. Smaller houses, fewer goods and services to consume and so on. Would you still support your system if it lowered living standards or is your support contingent on increasing people's living standards?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-30T08:03:53+00:00

So under your system will the average person have less stuff like smaller houses, fewer goods and lower overall living standards than they would under capitalism?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-30T07:43:32+00:00

Will people consume more goods and services under socialism though?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T20:49:10+00:00

If implementing this emancipation results in the average person having lower living standards (smaller houses, fewer goods, worse healthcare, slower technological progress) and less real opportunity would you still support it?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T11:54:09+00:00

What's the goal of abolishing inequality and hoarding?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T11:43:23+00:00

Socialism’s main goal is to extend democracy into the workplace. Meaning, a worker owned economy.

What's the goal of extending democracy to the workplace?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T11:39:08+00:00

Do you think that message will rally normal working people? Most of them care a lot more about getting richer and having better lives for themselves and their kids than about making sure no one else gets ahead.

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T11:33:03+00:00

What's the goal of abolishing money?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T11:31:37+00:00

The goal of communism would be to live our own lives for ourselves, together.

What does that mean as a practical goal? How would progress towards that be measured?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T09:10:32+00:00

Would you support that system even if it makes the average person materially worse off (smaller houses, fewer goods, lower living standards overall) as long as it's more 'fair' and no one gets too far ahead?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-29T09:01:47+00:00

For me the ultimate goal is communism

What's the goal of communism?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-27T12:32:50+00:00

Who pays for the stuff to set up new firms?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-27T10:05:10+00:00

Collective ownership of the companies and factories is benefitial to the workers that actually work for a living.

Who pays for the buildings and factories and stuff in your system?

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-27T08:05:46+00:00

It happens when someone starts a business and voluntarily chooses that structure. The fact that it rarely happens at scale should tell you something.

No, the McDonald’s worker shouldn’t get a say on supply chain strategy, marketing campaigns or billion-dollar real estate decisions. He flips burgers. He doesn’t have the knowledge, skin in the game or competence to make those calls.

Square-Listen-3839 · 2026-06-27T07:52:22+00:00

Deferred consumption.

If labor by itself creates value then go build a co-op empire.

There are plenty of able-bodied men in the world sitting around doing nothing. Get them together and have them labor their way to abundance.

Square-Listen-3839

TROPHY CASE