You know, Holla Forums, I've thought it over and there's only one beef I have with leftism...

You know, Holla Forums, I've thought it over and there's only one beef I have with leftism. I don't mind if people are poor, or if they're weak, or if they're degenerate faggots. It's when undermine the standard of value and pretend that being poor is "good", or weak is "good", or it's being a degenerate sterile faggot is somehow equivalent to being a fertile, productive heterosexual couple. If the poor and the faggoty simply said "yes, I am poor and/or a faggot, but I acknowledge that it is better to be rich and hetero", then I would forgive them and go on my merry way.

Being poor is not seen as a good thing by leftists. A major goal of leftist movements is to eliminate, or at least reduce, poverty.

Spoiler: You can't get rid of poverty by subsidizing it. That's why market socialists and co-operative types have the right idea.

If you get rid of production for exchange, poverty becomes virtually impossible.

You seem to be under the assumption that mindlessly pumping out children is a good thing, like some kind of ant or something. This is as bizarre to me as the preservation of the "nation" when a nation is just a collection of people, culture, and government.
Perhaps it is OP who is the faggot this day.

What? Literally only capitalists think this

It's more of a universal assumption that the poor were always wronged in some way and therefore in the moral clear for being poor.
Like think of a poor person and a rich person with equivalent moral quality. I don't think a leftist could honestly do this because the tacit assumption is that the poor person got screwed and has a valid grievance and the rich person may have been the screwer.

impossible

Wow, now I get it.
Exploiters and the exploited are morally equivalently. It makes sense if you don't think about it!

What do you consider the base standard of living before a person is not in poverty?

Explain please.