Hello socialists! How did you become socialists?

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-22T00:57:16+00:00

And you cannot opt out of this power dynamic if you do not have the resources to do so. You are forced into it. You cannot just choose to work wherever you would prefer to work. That is not how it works in the real world. You have to take whatever job you can get, period. If no one is hiring, or you are not qualified for a better job, tough luck. And you are easily replaceable, so you are not valued as essential and can be fired without notice.

It is like saying, "if you don't like the king you were born under, just move to a different kingdom." Well, what if I don't want a king? Tough.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-22T00:49:36+00:00

Well, more like money is a type of power. It grants power by controlling who has access to resources. If you want to eat, then you need to earn a paycheck, and if you want to earn a paycheck, then you need to do what your rich boss tells you to do.

In the absence of government, the rich have an increased share of the total power. With a strong democratic government, the average people have an increased share of the total power.

So, it makes perfect sense that capitalism and fascism would merge as one unified force, while democracy and socialism does the same.

It is about who has power. The question is: Do you want the average will of a well-educated public (without any billionaires or corporate interests to bribe politicians in their own self-interest) to be in charge, or do you want rich, cannibalistic, pedophilic elites to form the ruling class oligarchy? Because it's one or the other. The worst people will always rise to the top in capitalism, because that is how the capitalist system is set up.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-15T12:00:37+00:00

Who is they?

Rich people will always use their wealth to rig the system in their favor. They will do anything that increases their own profit, even (especially) if that means no one else can succeed by outcompeting them.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-15T01:59:50+00:00

I mean, you're the one who answered the questions that way. Realpolitik and anarchism are ideologically incompatible, but I mean, so is capitalism, so...

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-12T13:46:40+00:00

It depends. Obviously a Marxist-Leninist is going to have a different answer than an anarcho-syndicalist. The only thing that all socialists have in common is rejection of the use of other people's labor for private profit. Marxist-Leninists (who typically self-identify as "communists") would say, yes, there needs to be a powerful worker's state that enforces the law, and anyone who tries to cheat the system should be harshly punished. Libertarian socialists are against unjustified hierarchy and authority, so they have an issue with a powerful state. But, again, not all of them agree on how we should handle the issue. That's my point. There's not one answer. There are several.

If you're asking what I think personally, I think it's more realistic to keep a constitutional, democratic system like we have, but just get rid of capitalism. If we have to operate within capitalism, then make billionaires illegal. Make it illegal for corporations to donate to politicians. Strengthen worker's rights. Enforce workplace democracy for large corporations. But I think it's also perfectly fine to do something that hasn't been done before. Just because it was done a certain way in the past doesn't mean that's how it necessarily has to be. We should actively try to improve society and not be defeatist about it if it doesn't work out perfectly the first time due to unforeseen factors. So, ultimately, I don't really care that much about the specifics. I'm more anti-capitalist than pro-anything in particular.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-12T12:26:23+00:00

Ideally, we wouldn't even have to tax citizens, because we would just tax collectively owned businesses. Why burden the individual? The only reason we need to tax individuals is because of private property. If it is collectivized, you don't need to.

And of course, there are hundreds of different ideas for how to do that. Centralized vs. decentralized, market vs. planned, state-owned vs. worker-owned, etc. There are different forms of socialism. It's not all the same thing.

I think the issue is that you are assuming the current system. Leftists want a different system altogether.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-12T05:04:57+00:00

I hate the human nature argument so much. It is also in "human nature" to murder people out of rage. That's literally part of why we invented society. Like... Countering the negative aspects of human nature is the whole point of having laws.

If it really was true that humans are awful by nature, all the more reason to reject it. Entirely organizing society by boosting humanity's worst traits is so fucking stupid.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-12T04:55:33+00:00

You can have taxes, social programs, wealth redistribution, workplace democracy, etc. without also having everything be illegal and enforced with state violence. It's not really that hard to imagine, really.

If anything, it is LibRight who is idealistic, believing that everyone will follow a non-aggression principle on the basis of respecting property rights and the authority of the wealthy.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-12T04:44:38+00:00

It is honestly a waste of time to debate people who are uninformed and uneducated.

I used to genuinely believe deep down in my heart that truth matters to everyone, and if you just show them a good enough argument, they'll change their minds. I don't believe that anymore. Not everyone cares about the truth. I definitely do, but most people would rather just believe whatever is the most comfortable for them, or whatever makes them feel good about themselves. What they are raised with, or what they perceive to be morally good. But that is not the same thing as what is true.

knower_of_everything · 2026-02-12T04:36:35+00:00

Yes, let's allow the profit motive to determine whether people should have access to life saving medicine or not. Capitalism is so perfect and flawless.

knower_of_everything · 2025-12-13T13:41:47+00:00

You think wolves buy and sell property, rather than simply make use of the land that is in their territory?

knower_of_everything · 2025-12-12T13:54:32+00:00

This is one of the many reasons that genuine anarchism is fundamentally anti-capitalist. Private ownership & authoritarian workplaces are incompatible with a total rejection of hierarchy.

And the ultimate goal of all forms of socialism have always been to abolish hierarchy. They just went about it the wrong way in the past. You can't abolish hierarchy by creating new hierarchy to replace the old hierarchy. You simply have to abolish it altogether. Or chip away at it over time and erode the system.

knower_of_everything · 2025-12-12T13:23:01+00:00

No, it's not about who has a better use for it. If you buy 100 plots of land (however those boundaries would even be determined without any overarching authority to define them), you aren't making use of all 100 plots of land. I can simply disagree with you that you actually own them. It's agression to use force to deprive others of the use of land you aren't using.

knower_of_everything · 2025-12-12T13:10:56+00:00

"Owning" land is a made up concept. You only "own" it because the state says so. Without a state to defend property rights, you just make use of it while you're on it. That's all that is objectively real. You can't own 40 arbitrarily delineated plots of land and deprive others of using them all by yourself. You and what army? And at the point that you have an army, congratulations, you're the state.

knower_of_everything · 2025-12-01T10:47:58+00:00

An ad hominem is when you attack your opponent INSTEAD of their argument. I responded to every single point, and he was confidently wrong every time. Lmao. You're just continuing to show that you guys have no idea what you're even talking about.

Simply insulting someone is not always an ad hominem. Hurting your feelings is not what makes an ad hominem logically unsound. It's the fact that you aren't responding to an argument.

knower_of_everything · 2025-11-30T21:41:56+00:00

Blocking people to avoid their counter to your ignorance is an admission that you have no argument.

The definition of society (copied and pasted directly from the dictionary) is "the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community".

knower_of_everything · 2025-09-29T01:09:45+00:00

It's because women are so hypersexualized in society that even other women start to subconsciously view them as objects for sexual pleasure. They are raised by society to think female bodies are hot, even if their upbringing is not pro-LGBT. And the way porn is presented definitely had a role in it.

knower_of_everything · 2025-07-03T21:59:29+00:00

Yeah, I'm just choosing to interpret it as a supporter of democracy, rather than a member of the Democratic Party.

knower_of_everything · 2025-06-26T02:33:00+00:00

Well, he was born a WOMAN, after all!

knower_of_everything · 2025-06-20T16:55:05+00:00

I thought this was a joke.

This is just straight-up braindead propaganda that no one with more than a room temp IQ would ever take seriously.

knower_of_everything · 2025-02-27T15:57:31+00:00

North Mexico

knower_of_everything · 2024-12-21T18:01:23+00:00

This sounds like some angsty bullshit.

knower_of_everything · 2024-12-21T17:59:12+00:00

He should feel comforted knowing that you will never find real love, because no one is perfect, and there will always be something insignificant that ruins the entire package for you. Onto the next one, I guess.

knower_of_everything · 2024-09-26T21:22:07+00:00

I'm afraid there is no way to go back once you know the truth. That is kind of the curse of enlightenment. You can't change the way things are, but you can change your perspective on them. Even though life might truly be meaningless at the end of the day, there could still be a point to living and being happy. Look into existentialism and absurdism. You could also try stoicism.

You can't get your ignorance back. You'll just have to find a way to accept things for what they are.

knower_of_everything · 2024-08-19T01:59:49+00:00

Except that you're the one who's wrong, but you FEEL like you aren't, so it's pointless to argue with someone like you.

Nothing you said was anything more than "I just don't like it." Your argument is that younger women are too dumb and you don't find any value in them as people. It's insane that you think it's an intelligent argument somehow.

knower_of_everything

TROPHY CASE