Comments by "DeoMachina" (@DeoMachina) on "Hakim"
channel.
-
737
-
271
-
128
-
72
-
70
-
70
-
51
-
50
-
43
-
27
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
"For fuck's sake this is so pointless"
Then why does Vaush have to lie about it? When he says Marx/Lenin/Mao/whoever would offer political support for a bourgoise party, he is lying. He says theory supports his lie. It doesn't. You're right, this IS pointless. So he should stop.
"Also, I don't think that having a market economy, which is, you know, the functional one, exludes being socialist"
Comrade, if you think the market economy is functional, you have already in your heart given up on socialism.
Farmers plough excess crops back into the fields, and stores pour bleach over excess food they can't sell. While nearby people are going hungry.
In many places there are more empty homes than homeless people - but they will remain empty.
Cities and infrastucture are falling apart, but police forces get more than 50% of the local budget.
Pollution is getting worse, yet our consumption is increasing, not decreasing. We get wildfires every summer now, and they get worse and worse.
And what about the pandemic? We had the choice between killing people and saving people, and what happened?
Only the market makes this possible, only the market makes any of this worth doing. And what does the market give us in return? Nothing! It can't even sustain itself! It's only been 12 years since the worst recession and we're heading into another one!
If you think this is functional, if you think this is worth keeping - you are an extremist. Not a socialist.
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
" Capitalism is nothing but a market democracy"
No, that's not what it means. Capitalism is when the means of production are owned by a specific class of people, who employ a seperate class of people to work the means of production. You need to understand this more than anything right now. Capitalism is not "when people trade". Otherwise, you could say that people have been capitalists for thousands of years! In which case...why didn't we have the word until relatively recently in human history? What made early economists take note 200 years ago and decide that things were changing?
"Most of what your describing cannot be attributed to capitalism as it is merely part of the human condition. War, poverty, hunger, slavery, suffering, greed all existed long before the invention of the free market and, of course, was much worse without it"
All of these things got worse after capitalism was invented.
Sure, people fought before capitalism, but under capitalism we go to war when weapons manufacturers want more sales. Lobbyists literally walk into the halls of government and argue that we should start wars. That happens and is 100% legal within capitalist nations.
Sure, people starved before capitalism, but only when there was no food. With capitalism? Millions of people starve every year despite the fact that we are overproducing food! There's literally too much food in the world! Yet people starve to death? Only in capitalism could this happen.
I could go on and on for hours if you want, but capitalism has killed far more people than even the more exaggarated socialist death toll. You think communism killed 100 million people? I think that's wrong, but that's STILL less than capitalism!
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@Wonderingax "I like markets because they require no bureaucracy,"
And yet bureaucracy exists, interesting
" they are fast, dynamic"
By what metric?
"everyone can willingly buy and sell whatever they feel like"
No, people can buy what is currently profitable and very little else.
"Mistakes on a planned economy can destroy a country, you don't have to relay on anybody with markets"
You actually do need to rely on a lot of people with markets. And this leads us to the problem with markets: They always, always crash. We can't go 20 years without the market crashing. We've tried everything, every tax rate, every regulation, and the market crashes over and over again. Thousands of people die every time it happens, many more pushed into poverty. When will you give it up?
7
-
@Wonderingax "Well excuse me for not completely abolishing bureaucracy even tho you are talking about managing the state or some stock exchange not markets themselves, even when taking them into account you still have less which is my point."
But it continues to grow despite the market, which is my point.
"Don't you think it is easier to modernize and catch with the times when you allow private ownership"
No, I do not. And crucially, neither do the people who actually do the modernisation. Advances in technology and medicine are either directly state-funded, or depend on technology that was state-funded.
" Markets when possible always get on with the times, there's always somebody on the know, you just got to give them an incentive and thats money"
This is demonstratably false. The World Wide Web was rejected by every private company that got approached, the only reason it ever got off the ground was because CERN allowed it to be set up in an office somewhere. Electric cars? Suppressed by the motor industry about 30 years ago. Digital distribution? Private companies tried to ban it outright.
There's money to be made by getting with the times, sure. But new technology rivals the old. And private industry doesn't like rivals.
"for the state the commoner is absolutely alien,"
And you think the CEO of Amazon knows anything about what my life is like?
"Whatever is profitable is exactly what people want"
No. There are lots of things we want but can't buy. I want healthier food, I want consumer goods that aren't designed to break. Can't buy them though. The thing about supply and demand is that private companies control both of these things.
"but with planning, the plan itself is very susceptible, you need a group of perfect robot-like Technocrats."
Significant sections of the economy are already being automated with computers, central planning is literally what walmart does 24/7
"sure and they also create massive amounts of wealth"
Not for us, though. Only for the ruling class. When the economy is good, they get richer and we get poorer. When the economy is bad? They get richer and we get a LOT poorer.
"nobody should bring them down with taxes or forced collectivizations."
But price hikes and artificial scarcity is a-ok despite the millions of people it kills? That's fucked.
7
-
@Wonderingax " When you talk about suppression of innovation, Im not so sure about it"
Ya well, I am lol. So much could be better than it is, but unless it benefits a rich guy somewhere, it'll never happen.
"but I was talking more about worldwide cultural innovations"
Okay cool, every artist I know despises the market for what it does to culture.
" I do too, maybe we should vote with our dollars to gets some"
You think I should...stop buying food until they make it better? That won't last long.
"most people don't care that much about it, thats exactly why garbage food is so omnipresent"
Do you think the sheer power of the food industry might have anything to do with this?
" JB is an alien to us, but he got there by giving the masses goods and services they wanted, not by force or some political maneuvering."
Bezos doesn't rule by force? Bezos literally killed his employees! He worked them to death! He forced them to stay at work instead of evacuating during a natural disaster! And any Amazon employee that doesn't like it has to choose between that, or homelessness! You don't think the threat of starving on the street is force?
" Also I don't know that much about Walmart's planning but it is not that simple, its way easier to let the market be, I trust it more than politicians and democracy in general."
Sure would be a shame if the market saw something terrible like say, a global pandemic and decided "hm, better kill as many people as possible!" Sure would undermine your point if something like that happened.
Remember: politicians only act in service to the market. They get elected on the promise that they will benefit the market. They exist to do what the ruling class want.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@mottebailley4122 Burkina Faso did experience its fastest improvement in quality of life during those four years, maybe not a 'success story' but you've accidentally hit on something very important:
Whenever a poor nation implements socialism to improve the lives of people living there, imperial nations murder the leadership and install a capitalist government. It's absolutely not a coincidence that he was murdered months after calling for African nations to stop paying the debt that was forced onto them by Europe.
Burkina Faso, like many former colonies, took out massive loans while under the control of imperial superpowers. What that means is, a French citizen whose job it was to administer the colony, took out a loan from a French bank. And after independence, France still demanded the poor nations repay the loan that France forced upon them.
Do you see how it works now? This is why poor nations in Africa remain poor. Burkina Faso has substantial potential in its natural resources, but any poor nation that tries to keep this wealth for itself is invaded or bombed, or suddenly in the middle of a coup.
It doesn't matter if these nations adopt Socialism or Capitalism or anything else, they are forced to remain poor because that is what keeps other nations rich.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@PlatinumAltaria "For example his focus on factory workers over agricultural workers contributed to soviet dekulakisation policies"
Oh so you just haven't read Marx, gotcha. Could have saved us all a lot of time lmao
"and the way he viewed the underclass is clearly motivated by cultural biases"
His analysis was later proven to be correct, look at the huge differences between the Russian revolution and the Chinese one. One driven by the proletariat and one driven by the peasantry.
"Historical materialism is a pseudoscience with very limited scholarly value"
Yeah but you've already ruled out all science, so naturally you think everything is going to be pseudoscience.
" The progress of history cannot be solely attributed to local conditions, and culture is not deterministic"
Okay, so explain to me why cultures of Northern Europe fear the cold and cultures of the Middle East fear drought and thirst? You say it's got nothing to do with material conditions, so what is it? You've yet to present any kind of alternative.
" I believe that the only pathway out of capitalism is one of steadily increased democratisation and cooperation. I think that violent revolutions have always been overrun by authoritarian factions and that therefore this is not the pathway to positive change"
This is like the third time I've had to remind of you but...all democratic attempts to leave capitalism result in being slaughtered en masse. The capitalists will always resort to violence. By your logic, reformism is not the pathway to positive change since its always overrun by authoritarians.
"In general MLs and anarchists do not acknowledge the existence of this entire school of socialist thought, which is dishonest"
Really telling on yourself here, I don't think I've been to a major protest where there aren't three or four seperate socialist /anarchist groups that stand for exactly those things. Now I don't know where you live, but it's starting to look like you're not actually involved with anything IRL, or you'd know that your ideas aren't exclusive to demsocs.
"You tend to call us "liberals" even though we've done more to fight capitalist oppression than your movements ever have."
Just so you're aware, the past 100 years of history consist of reformists siding with capitalists against socialists. They did it in Nazi Germany, in Fascist Spain, in Iran, in Chile, I could go on.
And it never prevents any authoritarianism, it never saves innocent people from oppression. It only accelerates it. How many more socialists do you need to see hanged before you get it?
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
@superdog797 "Capitalism is the advocacy for freedom"
This isn't remotely true, not even on paper.
" in capitalism I can say that "everyone is equal" because, in fact, they are equal - equal in some specific sense such as the equal opportunity to pursue wealth"
Yes, but you would be lying if you said that. Again, it's not even true on paper.
"and the system places higher priority on freedom than on equality, and in fact, it is not a system meant to increase equality. It's meant to increase freedom."
And yet every time people demand more freedom, capitalism stands in the way. And somehow despite living in capitalism my whole life, overall I've lost more freedoms than I've won.
Your freedom/equality thing is a complete false dichotomy, you can't just ram dualism into everything and pretend it functions logically.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@HarperSanchez "I’m giving examples of an actual place in time from a historical country/dictatorship"
So did I.
"Something that came about from a “glorious people’s revolution.”"
So did I. The US is the product of a revolution.
"Our problems can be fixed with policy"
No, this isn't true. The USA cannot be fixed with policy.
"your problems come about at the genesis"
You aren't able to substantiate this.
"“do not have a functioning government, do not collect government rations and starve.”"
Again, you are describing capitalism.
"And look at who you are comparing in these “slave camps.” Capitalist prisons are full of criminals. Communist gulags are full of “political dissonance."
Capitalist prisons are full of people who had a few grams of weed, or people who didn't have bail money.
Oh you want to talk about political dissidence? In the USA people go on protests and demand that extrajudicial murder (another very american practice) be stopped. The police beat the shit out of them, then the journalists, then the bystanders, then just random people trying to drive home.
Let's not even get into the torture camps at the border or Guantanamo bay, some of those people have been locked away for 20 years despite never doing anything wrong at all.
A well-adjusted person might say "Okay but I'd still take my chances in the USA" and that would be fine, but you're straight up denying or trying to justify the crimes of capitalism. But I'm the cultist, somehow.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@mottebailley4122 This is a lie, you have read a specific and clear definition and are now simply pretending not to understand it.
"it can be applied to every single country in the world, past or present"
Completely ahistorical, totally inaccurate.
In feudal society, the land was commonly owned and worked by peasants.
In ancient agarian society, tribes did not have 'ownership' as we understand it.
Clearly, those examples are very different from capitalism.
Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the people who work it, where the working class runs society instead of a wealthy ruling class.
You've put a lot of effort into pretending not to know basic facts about the world, but that game has now ended. How about you answer some questions for a change? If you don't like how those words are defined, what are your definitions?
No really, what do you think socialism and capitalism are?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Electronic components can be rated to higher tolerances though, so when Apple choose poor-quality components for expensive phones, that's still capitalism in action.
"if you don't give consent for the exchange (for example your work for your pay) it is not capitalism."
It cannot be called consent if the alternative is dying. That is called coercion. Regardless, capitalism is not defined by how much consent there is.
"you can choose to buy the iphone or you can choose to buy a phone you know you have a chance at repairing on your own"
It is not reasonable to expect consumers to be prepared to maintain everything they own. Are you able to repair electronics, plumbing, cars, masonry, joinery, roof tiles while working in another field full time?
"in capitalism you have choices, it is not someone on a committee who chooses for you."
It is, capitalism is the one where shareholders decide what kind of products you're allowed to have access to.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
@billystanton1522 "if you'd rather be a "Uhygur" (correct spelling) then you don't know what's going on in China"
You only write this because you don't understand what is going on in Yemen or Afganistan. Sorry but it cannot even be compared. I'll take imprisonment and cultural genocide over literal extermination and starvation.
Remember: Arabs are people too, and if you deny the actual genocides these people are being subjected to, that puts you on the same moral level as any run-of-the-mill nazi. Think carefully before you pick your side here. You don't have to do this.
" you don't know their situations"
Incorrect. I know that a genocide has been going on in Yemen for years, and the USA has froze Afgan assets while its people are about to perish in a famine. There's no way to spin this, there's no nuance. Face this fact or become irredeemable.
" you can actually thank communist USSR for Afghanistan for destroying their way of life when they invaded in the 70's and opened up Afghanistan to radical Islamic theocrats "
And who funded and supplied those radicals? Was it, perhaps, the USA? It was, wasn't it?
The USA remains its own worst enemy, constantly failing to avoid hitting itself.
"and no their are no genocides currently being committed by capitalist nations, name one"
-Yemen
-Indigenous peoples of North America
-Indigenous peoples of South America
-Palestine
Not even an exhaustive list, I could go on with regards to genocide in Africa and South Asia, and if we go back to the 90's even Europe.
" I'm beginning to think you don't know the definition of capitalism. "
As always, I am happy to correct you.
"a social credit system punishes people for not behaving the way the government wants you to. they can restrict your right to travel, freeze your accounts, limit where you can shop for food and take away your right to live places all for doing things like protesting, exposing corruption, or saying certain things"
This doesn't actually happen in China, the social credit system hasn't been fully implementeted even. That's how I know you're wrong.
"a credit score is about how good you are about paying debts."
You've never applied for a mortgage, and I can tell. Best if you drop that one.
"it's not just present day Russian dissidents who are disappearing (which is true and a problem"
So you acknowledge that it's happening under capitalism then?
Oh incidentially, it was just verified that an American journalist was murdered by the IDF in Israel in a targeted assassination.
"yes American foreign policy and the terrible things the US has done has nothing to do with capitalism"
Incorrect.
" this is evidenced by the fact that there is zero correlation between capitalist countries and imperialism and a stronger correlation between countries with power and imperialism"
And these countries have power because they have money, they are using imperialism to protect their capitalist system.
"this is why the Scandinavian countries aren't invading countries"
Going to give you a chance to look this one up before you commit to being wrong again. Sweden and Denmark are in NATO and have provided support to invasions of other countries. (And..some of these countries had an empire. That's..basic history, man)
"Canada's treatment of the indigenous people over hundred years ago is nothing compared to the modern horrors of communism"
I'm sorry, a hundred years ago? Did I say a hundred years ago? I'm pretty sure I didn't. I'd have to check but I think I said it was recent. Because it was. Their genocide is 'nothing' to you? Want to rephrase that?
"the death toll from America pails in comparison to each and every country I mentioned"
Nope.
"there are no communist countries with a low death toll."
Cuba.
" the global hunger index shows your 9 million starvation figure is factually wrong. "
This isn't up for debate, I'm using numbers from the UN. Take it up with them if your favourite little index tells you a different number (it doesn't)
" capitalist countries have provided the overwhelming majority of innovation"
That's because almost every country is capitalist, real 200IQ brain you have there.
"no cubas life expectancy is 6 months shorter than the US and that's only if you believe the manipulated number of Cuba"
You have no evidence Cuba manipulates statistical data.
"what do you think the definition of capitalism is?"
It is when the means of production are privately owned by a class of people, who employ another class of people to work for them.
At the lowest end of the 'freedom index' I found, the only left-wing nation is Venezuela, which isn't even socialist, just left-wing. The rest are capitalist states in various stages of capitalist decay.
"capitalist countries have sustained themselves for hundreds of years"
Explain why the economy keeps crashing, then? That's not sustainability. I've lived through three recessions, and with each one thousands of people die. That's capitalsm 'working', to you?
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
lmao, we have a new type of racism, folks! Proximity to the equator is the new melanin!
" just wanted to say Marxism is the only political doctrine to never succeed"
Marxism wiped an entire empire off the face of the earth lmao
Working as intended
"In all human history - the southern hemisphere was poorer, less developed, and less intellectual"
No serious historian or archeologist would back you up on that
"You’re a terminally online dork raised in the cradle of western comfort"
It's so fucking funny that people keep accusing Iraqis of being coddled westerners
"The south has never once created an imperial entity that was able to compete on a global scale"
You're out here whining that other nations haven't been genocidal enough? Weird complaint to have but ok
"has never independently generated its own industrial capacity"
What was happening during the industrial revolution? Oh you don't actually know
" They were literally 10-15,000 years behind"
This is fantastic, never stop posting
"Colonialism largely ended over 6 generations ago"
This is such a weirdly specific way to be wrong?
"every country that was colonized ended up with a population boom and a massive uptick in quality of life, access to education, fresh water and food, across the board"
Actually tens of millions of people died, that's like...that's like the opposite
"You’re lecturing on why western capitalism is bad using statistics and studies produced in a western capitalist society, on software developed by westerners, with a machine built by westerners"
You did the thing! lmaoooo we got a live one everybody
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
"Food production was made with a mindset that only the most important people for the system need to be fed well and those who failed in their quotas can starve to death"
That's capitalism. You're describing capitalism. That's what's happening now, under capitalism.
"A guy who wants to live his life smithing for living cannot do so under socialism, because the government downright bans him from doing so because medieval swords he likes do not benefit the society as a whole"
Oh right, you're just one of those guys who doesn't know what socialism is
"an individual no longer has the choice to what he does for living, all his efforts are forced to drive towards "betterment of humanity", whatever that vague ideal means at the time."
Socialism isn't "when the government does stuff" ok
"The one thing communists always fail to answer is when Soviet Union collapsed, why didn't a single country attempt to recreate it"
Do you have any concept of how many millions of people were killed as a result of anti-communist purges?
Do you realise that left-wing governments were completely destroyed straight after being elected?
Plenty of people have tried to revolt against capitalism. They're dead now. You got what you wanted and you're whining about it.
"When Soviet Union collapsed, Estonia was so poor it could be counted among a 3rd world country"
Yeah that tends to happen when states collapse. It happened with Russia, too. Weird huh? Weird that Russia got significantly poorer after it adopted capitalism. Strange how that works!
" all societies are too complex and too chaotic to control completely. And to strive towards "true equality"-ideal, you have to control every aspect of society to achieve it, you have to force people to work on projects they don't like"
Again, that's capitalism. You're describing capitalism. You're describing to me the things I see when I look out the window.
"You have to tell that smith in the woods that your dreams and achievements are worthless, now come work in our factory for the betterment of society, or else"
Hi, I'm somebody who had to give up on his dreams to go work in a factory. I live in a capitalist country. This happened in capitalism.
"A socialist safety net built around a capitalist ship, hence why its a centrist system"
Quick question:
What happens to every single 'safety net' in capitalism? Oh, oh they get dismantled for profit? That's been economic doctrine for 50 years or so?
Weird how that works!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
There are a couple of reasons for this:
The obvious one is that any socialist nation which holds elections is going to be targeted by the USA and other imperialist nations. They're going to run propaganda for anti-socialist parties, send them money, cheat, accuse left-wingers of cheating if they win etc. Democracy only works for as long as every participant agrees to play by the same rules, and anti-communists have never played by the rules. As an example, see Boliva in 2019 (not a socialist country but a left-wing party won, and was quickly ousted by a fascist coup that didn't want to lose)
The only way to defend against this is to deny imperialists the chance to interfere.
The other reason socialist nations don't have democracy is because...well, nobody does. Not even nations with 'free' elections. Sure, Americans can pick between two candidates, but only if those candidates have corporate approval. And even then, voter suppression is a serious problem in the USA.
The rare time a socialist wins even a low-level position in the USA, corporations will blow millions of dollars trying to get them ousted (I'm thinking of Kshama Sawant in Seattle). Is that democratic?
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@billystanton1522 "no, there are no capitalist countries with a 1 party system without term limits, currently committing genocide, using a social credit system, or executing political dissidents. It's not even close and you're lying if you're claim otherwise"
Most of the genocides currently happening are happening either inside of, or at the behest of capitalist nations. That's not even up for debate. Check back through the decades to see that most other genocides were, too. I'd rather be a Uighur than a Yemeni or an Afgan is all I can say.
""no, there are no capitalist countries with a 1 party system"
Plenty of capitalist dictatorships out there, a lot of examples we could list. Keep pretending they aren't capitalist though.
"using a social credit system"
Oh yeah dude, no 'credit scores' in the west lmao
"or executing political dissidents"
Saying this as Russian dissidents keep turning up dead or getting jailed is sick, sick shit. Do better. (Also the USA has absolutely done that in living memory. I could write a paragraph of examples)
"Other capitalist countries include the Scandinavian countries"
I already covered those
"Canada, Switzerland and many many more peaceful countries, free from oppressive authoritarianism"
I'm sorry but Canada is easily one of the worst offenders, you don't get to handwave the genocide of indigenous people in Canada and claim it's not oppressive or authoritarian. Forced sterilisation was happening very, very recently and even today indigenous people in Canada are being brutalised by the state. Again, takes a real sick piece of shit to try and call that 'peaceful'.
"The US absolutely has its fair share of problems, especially in foreign policy. But that's not due to capitalism"
Oh sure yeah, it's all one big coincidence that US foreign policy just so happens to coincide with the interests of major resource companies and defence contractors. No profit motive here! Pathetic, you're not even attempting a defence.
"and its nowhere near the level of problems committed by china, North Korea, the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia or any other communist country. "
Correct, none of them will ever come close to the death toll America inflicts upon the world.
"The fact is capitalism reduced the poverty rate from 90% to 10%"
All those people are still living in poverty though, somebody just defined more than $2 a day as "not poverty" and called it a day. Seriously, look up the methodology.
"while communist countries starved its people at higher rates than capitalist counter parts"
Nine million people starve every year. In one decade capitalism starved more than communism did in a century.
"Capitalist countries create the overwhelming majority of innovation, especially biomedical innovation"
The irony here is that private biomedical companies actually refuse to do this without state funding. Capitalism itself actually stands in the way of progress, again I could write paragraphs of examples detailing examples of this.
"that has improved the length of human life and the quality while communist countries have lower life expectancies"
Cuba (developing nation) has a higher life expectancy than the USA. Other socialist nations keep getting bombed by the USA so perhaps you have a point actually.
"Capitalist countries routinely top the indexes ranking freest countries in the world "
They're also at the bottom of those lists, fyi.
" Capitalism works"
You're pretending not to have read the part where I explained that capitalism cannot sustain itself without its economy crashing. You're doing a really poor job of that. It's blatantly obvious that you have no answer for why capitalist nations cannot maintain a functioning economy for a single generation. Again, you have no answer but will never permit yourself to ask why.
And that's absolutely fucked.
4
-
4
-
@jesselempiainen2275 I mean, you don't know there will be no reprisal by capitalist forces until you actually try it. Establish a Nordic socialist state without being attacked by the police and I will admit I was wrong.
Your question is a good one:
Co-ops can lead to improvements in the workplace and I welcome the idea.
However, co-ops don't fix the internal problems of capitalism, they just cure some of the symptoms.
I will explain:
A co-op can be the fairest, nicest place to work and everybody there can be happy, but it is still a business. And a business needs to buy supplies at the lowest cost it can and produce a good or service at the highest price it can get away with. Every company is forced to do this, no matter if it is a co-op or not. If they don't, they eventually lose out to a company that does.
This means that the unsustainable growth, immoral business practices etc still have to happen, the changes co-ops bring can only be seen from the inside. For the rest of us on the outside, its just another company no different from the others.
So take planned obsolescence in phones for example. Sure, a company could make long-lasting phones. But that business model doesn't make as much money, and money is what allows a company to buy more factories, expand supply and dominate the market. So in the long run, nothing changes.
4
-
4
-
4
-
You're very quick to dismiss the terms used, simply because you've heard them used in other ways in other contexts. Do you do that with every word? No, you don't. So don't do it here.
"But what you are not simplifying for the layman is that you believe the prime source of profit in any capitalist economic system is the exploitation of workers. And that is where this discussion shifts from one about economics, to one about socioeconomic philosophy"
No, this is very much still pure economics. Profit is created by the workers, but goes to the boss. That's by definition exploitation, in economic terms.
"A philosophy based on the idea that everyone has a right to everyone else’s stuff"
That isn't what socialism means.
"And that ownership, in and of itself, is morally incorrect"
That isn't a tenet of socialism either.
"Now, while on the surface one might be able to be convinced of the righteousness of this philosophy, digging down just bellow the surface allows anyone to see that this philosophy is based on greed more so than anything else."
You're not even being consistent, surely a greedy person wouldn't want an ideology where ownership is wrong?
" It produces the most amount of freedom and the best conditions for life. Case in point; the United States is still here and is still working, if not improving"
And how many millions of people has the USA slaughtered in the name of maintaining its own profitability?
"Whereas every communist government ever has resulted in some form of totalitarian dictatorship"
Pretty sure more dictatorships have been created by the USA than by socialism lol
" Because human beings are greedy and while capitalism normalizes that"
Stunning admission, hold on I thought you said socialism was the one based on greed? Please pick one.
4
-
"Ah yes, when a socialist channel has a Patreon page. Prime irony."
Yeah settle down there Alanis
"Look, we can have social programs like an expansive healthcare system, a great education system and many many other social programs, without a one-party socialist state"
Yes...and no. Sure, reforms can and do happen a couple of times a century, but they are always and without exception ceaselessly attacked by every single subsequent administration. Capital does not give anything away without pressure, and when it does relent, it claws those losses back eventually. What I'm saying is that under capitalism, we're always going to have "un-reform". A great example is Britain, which introduced some amazing social programs in the postwar period. And every government since has destroyed them, one by one.
"From what I've seen, the socialist populus hasn't been so affluent."
Oh that's okay, because we know who is.
"If it really is the case that capitalists actively try to destroy socialists states, why are there still socialist countries with communist parties? (I heard Cuba is lovely at this time of the year!)"
I would like to point out at this juncture that the USA attempted to murder Castro a countless number of times, and orchestrated a literal invasion of Cuba. Additionally, it has put a complete trade embargo on Cuba and any company that deals with Cuba. Hundreds of thousands of people have been murdered across the world because of anti-communist death squads. These are just facts.
"But what do I know? I'm just a dumb, stupid and ignorant centrist who dislikes extremism because they create a world of hatred ruled by deranged people"
If you're a centrist, I need you to understand that this is your world we're living in. All the genocide, famine, endless war - that's not on us!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
1. Nope, private capital is still incentivised to extend itself to its maximum capacity regardless of if money is tied to gold or not. The problem is that any company that does not push itself to the limits will eventually lose out to a company that does.
2. There are metrics on this, you don't need to believe in the labour theory of value to read a graph my dude
3. Any company that does not grow loses to one that does. A company is forced to constantly grow to compete for market share and investment. This is basic stuff that even a capitalist acknowledges.
4. "Lobbyists only exist because states have laws" isn't the slam dunk you think it is. What's your solution here? Skip the middleman and just have private companies decide on what the law is? That's worse. You get why that's worse, right?
5. "What's stopping a skinny kid from winning the heavyweight championships? If he gets strong he can do it"
Amazing reasoning, but imagine a world where in order to train at the gym, you had to fight everybody in the gym. You're not addressing the problem, you're just saying that for some people it isn't a problem. We know that for some people it isn't a problem. That's the problem.
7. You have no evidence or reasoning to indicate that free markets are inherently innovative, or that innovation innoculates against monopoly. Sure, big business leverage the state against competition but do you really think in an unregulated market those same businesses would just shrug and say "Oh well, nothing we can do to influence the world to our advantage! I guess we'll just let the better ideas win!" You can't think of any examples of companies cooperating to achieve the exact same goals without going through state machinery?
You can't even think of a specific word that was invented to describe exactly this practice? No? You've never heard of a cartel? And you think you can challenge anybody else to anything? Sit down.
8. It's nonsense to assume that workers and owners have different interests...but then you flat-out admit that better hours and safety standards are only in the owner's interest if it increases productivity. In other words, you're implicitly saying that things which aren't in the interests of workers would still be in the interests of owners if it boosted productivity. This is literally a concession on your part and I don't need to say anything else.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 " You risked nothing for that business. You do want something for nothing."
No, this is literally just capitalism. You're describing capitalism. The bosses take value created by the worker and keep the biggest portion of it for themselves. But if a boss takes a portion of what 100 workers earn, that doesn't mean he's worked 100 times as hard. In fact, that is not physically possible. Therefore, he's taken something for nothing.
This is where you bring in 'risk', and yet between me and my boss, who's really at risk here? If the business collapses, I could lose my home, my possessions, even my life. I get nothing.
But my boss? Can walk away any time, never has to work another day in his life. Business fails? Just liquidate the assets. No, there's no comparable risk here. If my boss declares bankruptcy, he doesn't even need to pay debts!
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@conocimientoaureo8236 "No, it was an unbacked claim and as such discardable."
Facts are facts no matter how much backing I do.
"Also an unbacked claim. Equally discardable"
False.
"Nope, it is indeed correct. All 30 definitions of genocide confirm that."
You have, by this point, refuted yourself.
"No he doesn't. You have yet to show that to be true. But you can't."
Incorrect, I have done so.
"May I redirect your attention to"
You may, but I can't find any proof of your claim here. All you have given me are other people making the same claim as yourself. Where is the proof? I told you to prove it.
"I'm not defending him, I'm defending truth"
I wonder if you try this hard to defend every 'truth'. I wonder if you are this incompetent elsewhere, too.
"Believe me, I feel equally strongly about genocide"
Clearly not, if you're trying to argue that current ongoing genocides do not qualify as such.
"No need to lower myself to that level."
You would struggle to get any lower than you currently lie.
"There always needs to be that intent to destroy a people"
This is semantics, the last refuge of those too proud to admit fault. There is no version of forced deportation that is not destructive. Destruction is inherent to the practice. To clear Palestine of Palestinians would destroy the nation of Palestine, as there would be no more Palestinians in Palestine. It would cease to be a nation. That's not destructive to you? If you answer yes, you concede. If you answer no, you are literally stating that destroying a nation isn't destructive. In other words, you become an apologist for genocide.
What, are you going to tell me that as long as there are a few diaspora out there in the wider world it doesn't count? You realise just how many genocides you would have to deny to apply that logic equally? This is monstrous, utterly demented.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
Hi Joe, for what it's worth I do not believe your first paragraph for a second, but I will do my best to help you:
1. It's the opposite, capitalists demand short-term gain over long-term sustainability. We saw this during the pandemic, with capitalists demanding that all safety measures against COVID-19 be scrapped to enable a quick profit. This killed millions of people and ended up costing more money than it saved. Workers on the other hand, do not demand people die for profit. Workers are content to take long term plans because after all, they get paid the same either way.
"There isnt a capitalist to take all the risk and expand production instead the workers would be more risk adverse."
Marx wrote about this, this is considered one of the contradictions of capitalism. The capitalist will always push for the maximum about of production, even when it involves taking a risk. This is what brings companies down, and eventually the economy. This is one reason why we cannot go 20 years without a crash.
2. "A world where all profits fall to 0 is a world where all resources are allocated to their most efficient use permanently"
This isn't a logical statement. Resources can be used inefficiently, it still reduces the rate of profit.
Regardless, the rate of profit tends to fall because of automation and growth being necessary in a competitive economy. That's why the rate of profit falls. You have to spend money to make money, and the more money you make, the more investment you need. Companies either keep growing, or they die. But not every company can keep growing, that's another contradiction of capitalism.
3. In terms of what is 'socially necessary', don't worry too much about putting an exact number on every single job. The point is that each job requires SOME time. My job takes somewhere between 5 minutes and 1 hour for example. The labour theory of value doesn't mean I have to work out exactly how many minutes are truly necessary, only that there is a minimum amount of time. That's the point, that I have to spend time working to provide value. And the more time it takes, the more value I produce. The reason I can't artificially inflate value by taking way too long is because other companies will be asking less money for the same product.
4. "It seems to be that in most countries the more free the market is the more wealth there is for all"
No, it doesn't. Wealth disparity is at its worst in capitalist economies. So the wealth isn't really there 'for all', is it?
"But the poorest citizens are far better off then the situation before"
There are no developed economies where this is true. In Ireland, Britain, the USA, Canada, etc...poverty is getting worse. More homelessness, more malnutrition, people dying more often of completely preventable issues, all while public spending goes down? So life gets worse for most people...and infrastructure, education and healthcare all get worse too? And the parts of the country that get privitised become both worse and more expensive!
"But take Ireland the “sickman” of Europe became one of the wealthiest once the multinationals came in"
This contributed to one of the worst housing crises in Europe, a lot of money was made but none of it went to the Irish people, and very little of it went to the Irish state. So what actually occured was a mass transfer of wealth from Ireland to private companies from outside of Ireland. Is that sustainable?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"Surely if I own something personally, then it's privately mine i.e. not public for anyone to use"
You're mistaking colloquial English for technical terminology and this has confused you.
But no, private and personal ownership aren't the same thing. A privately-owned factory might be owned by a board of directors, but that doesn't mean they can just waltz out with all its assets any time they want. The assets belong to the company, technically speaking. So it's privately theirs, but not personally theirs. In this context private just means "not-public".
"Millions of innocent people died as a direct consequence of Soviet mismanagement of its resource allocation and millions more would be brutally murdered or imprisoned throughout the entirety of Stalin's reign"
Compared with the hundreds of millions who died under capitalism, this seems fairly progressive in comparison, don't you think?
"Even the height of Soviet power post-Stalin saw a lower quality of life for the nations trapped unwillingly within the Iron Curtain"
And yet the worst conditions were found in capitalist nations.
"extensive attempts at destroying individual cultures to incorporate them in to a larger soviet identity"
There's a lot to criticise Stalin for and I don't defend him, but bear in mind that the capitalist version of this wasn't destroying culture. It was destroying people.
" Yes, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland are all famous for their extensive colonial holdings and imperial expansion unlike the USSR "
Do you know what we're referring to here, specifically
"Then why has every single nation that ever attempted full socialism collapsed, starved, stagnated under totalitarian rule, or compromised on its ideology by integrating capitalism in to their economies"
I wonder if the same forces that slaughtered millions of communists around the world might have also had a hand in any of the above?
It's interesting that any failure of a socialist state is an indictment of socialism - but this hasn't caused you to reconsider capitalism, despite the latter failing far more often, and with more dire consequences.
"Why have people historically fled from socialist nations to capitalist ones"
Watched the news this year at all? Seeing a lot of people fleeing capitalist nations.
"Why do socialist governments ban more books and information and have greater censorship than capitalist democracies"
Not unique to socialism - supression of ideas has always been implemented by all types of state. 20 years ago you could lose your career if you publicly opposed mass murder, for example. (If you lived in the USA that is)
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@venik88 "Yea, people have worked without a wage for centuries. And America had a bloody civil war with millions dead to end it. It's called slavery"
No, I mean money hasn't always existed. You realise the Flintstones is fiction, right?
" If people aren't rewarded for working hard, nothing gets built. We go back to the stone age. Socialism has to be enforced by violence to work"
That's capitalism. You just described capitalism, the system we live in. We're NOT being rewarded for working hard, some of us work as hard as possible and still don't have enough money to live on!
And if we don't feel like it? If we don't want to work? We just die.
And if we challenge the system and demand to be treated fairly? We get fucked up by the police.
So in capitalism our options are either get paid peanuts and stay poor, get beaten up or die. Oh but you think socialism is violent?
Hitler wasn't a socialist, we know this because he spent so much time murdering socialists and suppressing trade unions. You know, the opposite of what socialists believe in?
Oh and uh, trying to tell me that jewish people were killed for being 'capitalist' is a denial of what the real reasons behind the holocaust were. It is utterly shameful that you would try to twist the deaths of millions to defend your ideology. Never do that again.
"Businesses are responsible for 100% of the products you use everyday. Including the internet, the keyboard, mouse, pc, wiring, internals, social platform that you are communicating me with"
You would be amazed how much of that depended on state-funded research and development. Hell, even the World Wide Web was rejected by businesses for not being profitable enough. We only talk like this today because CERN allowed the WWW project to set up inside their office.
"Owning a business is 10x more stressful than working for one."
Absolutely not, that is laughable. Somebody living in poverty is under significantly more stress than somebody who can literally just take as many days off work as they want. The person who dies if they lose their job is under far more stress than somebody who could quit tomorrow and live for years on their savings.
" If you don't believe that then start one, it doesn't cost anything to start a business"
This is a lie, you do not believe that.
"You might want to get a whip beforehand like the pre-civil war slave owners."
You realise slavery still exists in privately-owned prisons right
Thanks capitalism
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@wruxiz6104 " If we created government programs like the FDA for products to prevent planned obsolescence, work on reforming our approach to the homeless problem, fund more government lead unions, prevent the lobbying of billion dollar enterprises, etc. We could achieve a much more hopeful future without the need for socialism"
Okay, but 99% of government representatives are against 99% of this. And 100% of mass media is against all of it. So what's your plan for making it happen? Asking nicely?
You could run for election, but your enemies are willing to spend millions of dollars to ruin your professional and personal life, and you can't get elected without support from both the media and one of two major political parties. Look what happened to AOC and Ilhan Omar, they first rose to prominence as hopeful progressives - now they're strikebreakers. They had to betray everything they used to stand for, because it's the only way to keep their job.
"They were created to aid their citizens and thats what they need to do"
This is the root of where we disagree. The government wasn't created to serve the people - millions of them were slaves at its formation, and women couldn't vote at all. It was never about most people. Just the important ones, and nothing has changed. So the government isn't 'not working' - this is exactly what it is designed to do.
3
-
@wruxiz6104 " But that was just the world back then, look at other countries- Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, France, hell even the U.K. These countries were all plagued with the same bad choices. Slavery and Sexism in the government was a worldwide problem, not just in America. Its a bit of a side tangent, but still it bothers me when people point to that as the catalyst of Americas upbringing"
Right, but the same applies in all those countries too. A ruling class formed a state to organise the oppression of lower classes.
"That's life. But if the only way to beat them is to become them we've already lost"
Well, what if there was another way? It involves challenging the ruling class and their economic dogma, but it works.
"One thing I know is that too many people who complain about a corrupt governement and preach about it online never do anything to change it. They sit on their phones and whine instead of taking a stand"
While this is certainly true, there have always been people out there doing the work. And in recent years, more and more people are joining them.
"Just give it a decade or so and I think this country will surprise you. Have faith."
America has spent less than 20 years of its history at peace, I can't really afford to have faith in it. Best case scenario there's another 'new deal', but as a foreigner that's not what we're worried about.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@xdgamesCoUk "There is no limit to how much money you can make"
This is a lie, you don't actually believe it. You know there is a discrete amount of money, it isn't limitless.
"You might fail, but that's life. You are still free to try. Under socialism you don't have these freedoms, some other people will decide what you need, and you get what you're given"
So it's freedom if you're able to try? In that case, you're just as free in socialism. You could ask the government for three homes. You might fail to convince them, but that's life! According to you, at least.
So your own logic proves you wrong, that's never a good sign, Adam.
" It sounds attractive to people who have nothing, to people who don't have the capacity to get what they want in the current system"
That's the vast majority of human beings, incidentally.
"Regarding renting, how does anyone end up renting a place? It isn't by force"
The alternative is death, so it is force, actually. It is.
" It is not a dictation of how you live, it is a choice"
So if the Soviet States of America offers you a choice to accept the terms of their rule or be sent to jail, is that a choice? Again, your own logic is refuting you here.
" but I have never heard of a landlord telling someone what they can and can't do "
Again, this is a lie.
" If you don't like your job, leave, if you don't like working for other people in general, find a way to make your own money, you are free to do these things in the current system"
It's not mathematically possible for everybody to do this, you haven't given your ideas a second thought. Not once.
"you put no effort into trying to better yourself"
This is a lie.
"You and you alone decide how much money you earn, no one else."
This is a lie.
"The prison you live in is a prison in your unambitious mind"
The ambition of socialism eclipses anything you've conjured up in your wildest dreams. That's one of the criticisms we often face, that we are actually TOO ambitious!
"(unless some how you are able to convince hundreds of millions of individuals to give up their individualism and put a small group of people in charge who will give you some handouts)."
That's capitalism, you're describing capitalism now. When your strongest argument against socialism is a description of the system you currently live in...that's a bad sign.
"You are free to move to or start up your own commune where you and anyone else who wants to join you can live according to socialist ideology, and so long as you don't break any laws, you will be left alone to live in your socialist paradise .... there are thousands of people who are doing this right now, why not you???"
I'd like to remind you at this point that millions of people were murdered in anti-socialist purges in the past 100 years. Anywhere socialism is built, capitalists try to wage war.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jlopez4889 "how is taking money from the working class theft if you agree upon it"
The same way robbery is theft if the victim 'agrees' to hand over the money. The point being that it's not really consensual.
"And who pays for the business if the business goes broke"
Well not the not the person running the company usually, they just declare bankruptcy.
"The employees? As for as i know, the cost they pay is having to find another job"
You're glossing over this but people genuinely lose their homes, medical care and even their lives after being fired.
"If the business was a restaurant, what the owner has to pay is the ingredients, the cooking equipment, the rent for the place, insurance for the damages from customers, potential lawsuits, and on top of all that, employees. What did i mention from this list do the employees pay for"
The employees are paying for the rent, insurance, lawsuits, ingredients. The owner pays for the equipment usually, but may have investors doing that part.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@TheNightshadePrince "You don't understand how expensive it is to deliver and keep a supply chain for multiple stores, along with branding, upkeep, maintenance, etc"
Oh, you mean all those things that independent stores have to pay for? Moot point.
"Your making a strong case for small government with very little power. :)"
Central America called, left a message for you about what happens in that instance
"That's capitalism, adapt your company or watch it die. A great example is the mechanical computer industry of the 20th century that couldn't compete with hand held digital calculators."
But you're arguing for the opposite.
"You are absolutely right because globalism allows companies to move factories overseas preventing unionizing and while exploiting workers in countries that lack good worker protection laws."
The USA has never had good worker protection laws, even before globalism. Hell, there used to be private armies ready to shoot workers in the old days. That's what you're looking forward to?
"I encourage you to read about the technological advancements of the romans as they were about as technologically advanced as europe of the mid 19th century"
This is a lie, and you don't believe it.
" Alot of the slavery Rome had was from newly conquer places and Rome was a complicated society and the truth is a bit more nuanced than "They had slaves, therefor they were bad people." "
Ah yes, its nuanced because the Romans were also killing people in other countries. Of course, forgot about the murder.
"Gay marriage was probably the last time this happen and that was a few years ago. :)"
People had to literally fight for equal rights, people died in the struggle. Do you think many people are going to risk their lives so they can work in a shitty factory all day?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@3zzzTyle "Tens of thousands of years of wars, tyranny, slavery and massive inequality in wealth and power around the globe. Right."
Notice how people had to be compelled, tricked, or forced into all of those.
If you were right, those examples would be instictive to us. But they're not.
Am I wrong? How come we have to pay people lots of money to do these things then? How come propaganda needs to exist to make people believe those things are okay? How come none of it happens until powerful people make it happen?
Because in tens of thousands of years, never has an entire nation woken up one day and thought "Yeah, we should travel across the world and kill some people we'd never know about otherwise". Somebody had to make them do it.
"Whataboutism, and rather pointless at that. I did not defend capitalism, nor do I intend to"
Okay, don't defend the ideology that fits your conception of humanity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mrreaper8826 Your argument is self-refuting.
You want to bring biological evolution into it? Okay! By all means!
Tell me, what happens when one species gets too good at preying on another? Either the prey evolves to get better at surviving, or it gets wiped out. And then the predators starve because they wiped out their prey.
So the laws of nature are this constant evolutionary arms race, wouldn't you say? Each time a predator evolves something to help it hunt, the prey evolves something new to stay alive longer. Camoflage, flight, poison, the list goes on.
You uh, referred to the 'losers' there. Who do you think that is? Because I know one thing about you: You're not in the ruling class. You've got more in common with the 'losers' who have to work for a living.
And the 'losers' typically don't enjoy being murdered by rich assholes, so they try and stop it if they can. Fighting back, forming unions...and yeah, sometimes overthrowing the entire economic system. Just like in nature, the prey evolve with the predator.
Don't like that? Sorry, rules of nature. There's winners and losers. Spare me the 'stable and prosperous' bullshit, there hasn't been a free market that lasted more than 20 years without crashing hard.
3
-
@mrreaper8826 " An undisturbed environment reaches an equilibrium state going back and forth between predator and prey"
Literally what I just said. Thanks for going to the effort to explain why I'm right, but...I already knew?
"An undisturbed environment reaches an equilibrium state going back and forth between predator and prey"
Oh right like the 'arms race' I mentioned? So you agree? That's perfect. This bodes very well.
"But I think I'm doing pretty good for myself. I'm above the SMP 500 in the stock market so I think I'm doing better than most people"
Cool cool, fact is you're far closer to the 'losers' than you are the ruling class. It happens, lots of above-average earners lost it all in the crash.
" I'm not begging for change or living off of welfare"
You said you're in the stock market, so you are still taking money from the work other people are doing. It's like a kind of premium welfare.
"don't know if you know this but the 'rich @$$h0les' need the normies and losers to keep the market flowing, they don't want them dead"
6 million people died during a mostly-preventable pandemic, for two years any concern for safety was met with mewling business owners crying about "waa the economy waaaa". I'm not debating this one. I'm right, you're wrong, we'll draw a line under this and score another point for me, yeah?
"But you can continue believing in this fantasy of class warfare."
Again, there's no debate to be had here. Workers used to get murdered if they went on strike, they're not safe from police brutality even now. But you've already conceded this, you already agreed with my comparison between predator and prey. Now you're telling me its a fantasy?
"Because it's people like you who don't understand economics who beg for welfare expansion and stimulus checks"
No? I'm a Marxist lmao
" but it's ignorant people who get loans they know they can't pay back immediately and buy homes to sell for exorbitant prices that caused the housing crash, and then complain about predatory lending"
Are you seriously trying to blame customers for the banks loaning out too much money? Nobody forced banks to do that! That's their business! That's the 'free market', where every business crashes eventually. Because they overextend themselves.
"It's not enough for people to just save money, normies cause inflation"
You can't blame 'normies' for raising the prices of goods. They don't control the price of goods. Blame the people who actually run the economy. That's the 'free market' doing what it was meant to do.
" I'll be fine. I got my silver, some gold, stocks, and bullets"
Amazing advocate for capitalism, if your advice is "okay buy gold and bullets to ride out the economic catastrophe that we can't prevent because this is a free market" You don't even have faith in your own preferred system!
Again, totally self-refuting.
3
-
3
-
3
-
"There is massive disruption in energy sector due to war in Ukraine."
And I should be paying for this...why, exactly? I'm not the shareholder. But the shareholders are forcing me to pay so that their own profits remain consistent despite disruption. There's no way to explain this, you have no justification for it.
"And for some reason these failures continue to happen in socialist countries"
Absolutely not, Cuba for example has one of the highest rates of home ownership in the world. Homelessness is just not an issue there. Same with their healthcare, its allocated based on need and not the market whims. They did struggle in the 90's for geopolitical reasons, but even then they avoided a famine under conditions that would have led to mass graves in any capitalist society.
"In capitalist countries the easy fix is simply social democracy, where society helps the less fortunate"
Fantastic solution, except for the part where the USA invades, destabalises or sanctions nations which try this. Look what happened to South America, look at the millions of people who died in anti-communist purges in Asia. The first world will always deny the third world social democracy, and will always side with outright fascists instead.
And as for social democracy in the first world? It works out great, until your reforms are stripped away. And because there will always be a profit incentive to strip those reforms away, capitalists will always be plotting exactly that.
Additionally, your nations economy is dependent on the exploitation of people elsewhere in the world. Like the rest of Europe, you're rich because other people are poor.
"I simply have superior solution to yours :)"
This is a hideous way to react to what I said. Capitalism is currently engaging in a literal culling of the population in my country, and your reaction is a smug fucking emoticon? 'Try social democracy :)"?
What if we did, you arrogant sack of shit? What if tried and it resulted in brutality, intimidation and a complete excision from electoral politics? What if those opposed to social democracy are willing to murder as many people as it takes to prevent it from forming?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@pedropradacarciofi2517 "Buying the competition is impossible in most economies"
Compare for example the number of media companies in ther USA 50 years ago to today. Wealth consolidates. The competition is narrowing, and always does.
"specialy because nothing stops other people from just opening new bessness as well, forcing you to endlessly buy them and waste all your money"
Okay, so explain why there are fewer businesses then? Less people are self-employed, single companies control greater and greater portions of production.
"Only way that dosen't happen is if opening new bussness is impossible, wich can only happen thanks to government intervention"
Or maybe competing against established businesses is very hard. Try and make a new Starbucks-type company. Starbucks make such huge profits they can undercut you at a loss for years if they have to. They can give away free coffee every day if that's what it takes to starve the competition.
"Good thing that's not the case for anything then. You allways have several alternatives"
No, you don't.
"Because their govenrment banned inter-state competition, yes. Also it's not "price gounging" when prices increase due to bigger demand or lower suply, that's just normal"
It's not because they banned inter-state competition. It's because they deregulated the power grid, ironically to stop the federal government from being able to control it. This is the free market at work.
And it is literally price gouging, the power companies were instructed to increase prices beyond demand.
"What do you think is capitalism if not simply economic freedom?"
Capitalism is when a social class (capitalists) own the means of production, and employ a working class to do the necessary work.
"That's how Marx defined it and how it worked every single time it was implemented"
You've never read Marx.
"Simply fase."
Wrong. The government was overthrown and replaced with a private company.
"Once again factualy wrong"
Incorrect.
"Do you have some kind of learning impariment? A company can't make decisions for anyone else, they can only make offers"
Then why don't companies make what I want them to make? Why don't they distribute resources the way I want them distributed?
Because they make decisions, not me. I can only choose the things they allow me to choose. I get a menu, but they write the menu.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@asamanthinketh1937 "Cuba: first of all, you compare two dictators, which is not productive."
What? I can't compare like for like? How about you give me a list of what I'm allowed to compare?
"However the living conditions compared to other countries are still to today way worse"
Absolutely not, on average I'd much prefer to have been born in Cuba than in say, Brazil or Peru, or Cambodia or Uruguay. It's not even close.
"Quality of life in the west was significantly higher compared to the soviet"
Even the CIA noted that people in the USSR were eating better, don't even pretend lmao
"The soviet union failed economically, socially and politically after only 70 years"
In that timeframe the country went from pre-industrial to the secondmost powerful country on earth. You simply do not believe the words you are writing.
"He also had other issue but lets leave it at this as the horrible inflation destroyed the whole economy."
Yeah and what happened when Pinochet took over? Exactly. It got worse.
With economic 'freedom' everybody somehow gets poorer, AND the government gets death squads.
"I believe Switzerland should be the role model for other countries."
And now we're back to my original point:
Switzerland externalises the problems and makes them happen outside of Switzerland.
In other words, Switzerland cannot be a model, because it relies on other countries NOT being like Switzerland.
It's like how you can buy cheap electronics in a market economy:
They're only affordable because some children were paid pennies to dig up the raw material, and wage slaves in Malaysia/Singapore/China were paid rock bottom wages to make the devices. This keeps the final price low enough for you on the other side of the world.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@conorw4077 1. People are forced to spend regardless of the monetary system, because they need to, y'know
Not die
The working class isn't saving money not because of inflation, but because they need to meet their immediate needs or perish. None of your alternatives even purport to address this.
2. To claim that capital and profit do not have a relationship is a lie. You do not believe that.
3. The term 'grow' is well-defined and well-understood. Again, you are pretending to not know things. Your argument really isn't bolstered if you feign ignorance! It just isn't!
Efficiency is not the point being referred to, so again I have no choice but to interpret your refusal to engage as a concession.
4. You realise that the bad things that the state is doing to economics, foreign affairs and our daily lives are things the state is doing at the behest of capital, right? Like, although the state is brutalising people on behalf of oil companies, oil companies are more than happy to pay for private security to do the dirty work when necessary. There are countries where this happens, and the state is in no position to stop them.
5. Again, you're straight up refusing to acknowledge the point made. The number of oppurtunities is not being debated, here. You're attempting to refute an argument that nobody made. The problem isn't "nobody can succeed", the problem is that success is wholly dependent on a class of people living in underpaid, precarious conditions. It doesn't matter if a cleaner starts his own business, because somebody has to hold the broom at the end of the day. What, you think we can all just be CEO's? A hierarchy requires there be a base layer at the bottom. Personal responsibility doesn't address any of what I just said. Even if everybody woke up tomorrow and took maximum responsibility, nothing would change, here.
7. Legally speaking a monopoly doesn't even need to control 100% of the market, speaking legally that is. So uh, legally speaking any time a company is found to have acted in a monopolistic manner then legally speaking it is a monopoly, by legal definition.
Interesting how a moment ago you had no idea what "grow" meant, but now you are very, very certain it means "innovate" which is...an interesting strategy! Again though, you are simply lying through your teeth and I will not be addressing such fantasy, lmao.
As for the cartels point...you seem to genuinely think I'm referring to the drugs trade. I'm speechless, honestly.
8. I don't mean to dunk on you too hard but the fact that poor conditions exist does actually refute everything you just said. It does, actually.
And if you don't like my tone, perhaps you should examine your own. You strut in with talk of sophistry and 'pseudointellectual drivel' and you expected better discourse? I'm fairly cordial to people who can at least pretend to be here in good faith.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@baileyjorgensen2983 I was only speaking for my own country, but one thing to take into consideration is that there is "homeless" and there is "has no home" and how this is defined changes from place to place. A lot of places look like they have a low homeless rate because people in temporary accomodation are filed under a different statistic. What I'm trying to say is that its hard to prove or disprove with a quick search.
Again, only speaking for my own country here but our number of food banks has gone up by like 2000% or something in my lifetime.
As for how much people earn, it doesn't mean much if you make more money when rent/homes cost twice what it used to, or if you go bankrupt when you need an ambulance, or if education is extortionate.
People increasingly cannot afford to live despite working 50 or even 60 hour weeks, but 100 years ago one man with a job could support a family, so what happened there exactly?
It is reasonable that you can't find 2020 stats because they might not be published yet, but I would like you to consider one thing:
If your system cannot handle huge aggravating circumstances despite having years of warning and solutions proven to work...can it be that good of a system?
Like, if a meteor came out of nowhere and wrecked things then sure, nobody could handle that. But there have been pandemic prepardedness warnings for years. This pandemic could have already been over, other countries have proved that it is possible. But when capital runs your society, human lives are just fuel.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@OMGUKILLKENNY2 " Small businesses take a lot to invest into, failure at that stage would cause the owners to lose far more then what any employee would"
This still isn't true, the absolute worst case scenario is that a boss has to get a regular job like me. The risk is equal at that point.
Besides, on what planet does it make sense that a finite investment entitles you to limitless payback?
"The employer does not take what the workers earn. They give the workers the agreed wage."
This doesn't make sense. Just because employees agree to it doesn't mean it's not happening.
"But if that worker was paid $5 then that means the employer started with $5 and for his time and effort ended with $5 at best. Which makes the entire process pointless for him"
You realise you've literally taken my side on this, right? You're not telling me it doesn't happen, you're explaining to me WHY it happens.
So you agree, the boss DOES take biggest cut of the work done by the worker. He does it because there wouldn't be a point in being a boss otherwise. That is correct.
Of course, this necessarily means that the worker is actually doing the work that makes the boss rich. Without a boss, the workers would have more money but the chairs would still keep getting made.
In fact, we clearly only need bosses to provide the initial investment, but even that's only true because workers are not being paid the value of their work! If they were...any worker could afford to start a business.
And in a socialist country, new businesses would be a combined effort of all workers, minimising risk for any individual.
3
-
3
-
@nathanielhegge5582 "Socialism raises the standard of living at the severe expense of others"
No that's capitalism
That's literally just capitalism
"capitalism has been successful at incrementally over decades. In Western countries"
Poverty is increasing, so maybe hush up about capitalism in the west.
"For example, homeless people have access to snow boots"
Amazing! Wow! Did you know there are usually more empty homes than homeless people?
"On the other hand, the USSR had an extensive famine"
I mean capitalist-run nations have had more famines so uh...I don't think this was a good line for you to take
"At least we have the decency to treat our prisoners as humans"
In the USA there are blacksites where people just disappear, we don't know what happens to anybody inside. In privately-owned prisons, people are used as slave labour. Last year during the wildfires, one state was even forced to just let the fires burn because they had decided to just allow all of their child-slave-firefighters to get a deadly disease during a pandemic. Oh, and asylum seekers are put into cages and tortured/sexually abused. Maybe don't talk about prisoners either?
"Amazon got richer during the pandemic because shopping online was safer"
Nobody asked lmao
That doesn't matter
What matters is that rich people have set up the economy so that when times are good, they get all the money. And when times are bad, they still get all the money but working people die a lot. That's not sustainable, that's not moral. You're a monster if you cannot see this.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@conocimientoaureo8236 "That's a false comparison"
You are lying.
"Whereas Shapiro has never done anything that could even closely be compared to committing or supporting the comitting of genocide,"
He is clearly calling for an act of genocide in this article. Therefore, he supports it.
"while also saying that he didn't want genocide"
Have you considered the possibility that Shapiro is a liar? He does want genocide. He hates arabs in particular and has never attempted to hide it.
The most charitable way to interpret Shapiro is that he doesn't consider depopulation to be genocide. That doesn't mean I have to delude myself into thinking the same way though. I will continue to refer to support for genocide as support for genocide.
"The fact that a forced transfer of people causes deaths is still not definable as genocide. "
Incorrect.
"The fact that a forced transfer of people causes deaths is still not definable as genocide."
Killing people en masse because they are of a particular ethnic or national background is actually genocide. It is that.
"Genocide must necessarily include the intent to destroy a people. Certainly not the case with Shapiro."
It actually is, otherwise he wouldn't advocate for it at all.
"Nowhere does it mention "forced transfer of populations" as genocide."
I refer you to article II, sections (a), (b) and (c). All unavoidable aspects of depopulation.
In fact, the state of Israel is doing those things to Palestinians as we speak!
"Also, I do wonder, since the Townhall article in question was written 18 years ago in 2003, whether he actually still supports that idea. There's a high chance he might have changed his mind since then"
He is still a die-hard zionist who hates Arabs and Muslims so honestly, I doubt it.
This is the same guy who said civilian casualties don't matter, who writes off the lives of arabs as if they were nothing, who has honestly spent the past decade producing propaganda designed to make people afraid of all Muslims. He has specifically tried to paint the Islamic world as being broadly supportive of terrorism and has referred to moderate Muslims as a myth.
His hatred is so strong, he's been influential on actual terrorists who found themselves radicalised by his videos. At least two actual terrorist attacks against Muslims were partly inspired by Ben Shapiro.
That's who you're defending, for some reason. I don't know why, it's entirely possible to be a right-wing shithead without defending maniacs like this. You could have just done that, instead you're going to the mat for somebody who genuinely doesn't care if you live or die. Why?
2
-
@conocimientoaureo8236 "No reason to personally attack me. I'm not lying, nor am I wrong"
False.
"You're comparing a person who robs but says he doesn't to a person who neither robs nor advocates robbing"
You have already been shown to be incorrect here.
"Again, he's not calling for genocide"
Wrong, he is calling for genocide and I have demonstrated this.
"Of course it is theoretically possible he's lying, but unless I have evidence to support it (which in this case there isn't)"
His advocacy for genocide in the article where he claims it isn't genocide..is actually evidence that supports the notion he is a liar.
"If deaths occur accidently then it's not genocide."
Nothing about the situation in Palestine could be described as 'accidental', at this point. There is a limit how how far you can twist this.
"Read the bloody definition! If people die during forced removal that's not genocide because there was no intent to destroy them. There was intent to move them. There is a difference."
By 'move them' you mean 'move them out of land claimed by Israel'.
To quote the page you linked without fully reading:
"Genocide can also be committed against only a part of the group, as long as that part is identifiable (including within a geographically limited area) and “substantial.” "
Consider yourself corrected.
"More opinions and acusations without evidence. That which is asserted without evidence can be disgarded without evidence."
Disregard it if you want, it is all still 100% true and easily verifiable. This isn't my thesis and we aren't in a court of law. I am under no obligation to source everything. You can choose to remain ignorant if you like.
"I'm not defending him"
This is also a lie. You are specifially defending Shapiro against claims he advocates for genocide.
" I'm defending truth against misrepresentation."
As I have demonstrated, this is not true.
How low are you willing to go? How far will you debase yourself to try to argue that this isn't a call for genocide?
Bear in mind, so far you've focused on what the UN considers to be genocide from a legal perspective. Not only are you failing in this regard, but what if you succeeded? Would that vindicate Shapiro?
Not even close, because the UN is only one organisation with one perspective on what genocide is. Generally speaking, organisations that aren't made up of imperialist criminals guilty of war crimes have a much broader scope for the term.
The absolute best you can hope for is to prove "the UN wouldn't convict based on that". But like..it would still be genocide. I just brought them in as an easy, widely known example. You seem to think you can prove this and that'll settle matters. You're wrong, like you're wrong on everything else so far.
2
-
@conocimientoaureo8236 ">Not an argument."
Correct, it was merely a statement of fact.
"Re-read my comments for reference."
Re-read my response for your refutation.
"He isn't, and you haven't. All you have demonstrated are your own biases by projecting your own subjective interpretations into what you think he wrote."
This is a lie.
"He is right, forced moving of people isn't genocide, even if some people die during the process"
Incorrect.
"Rather than engaging in the same practice I will simply ignore them."
Interesting that you ignoring my points looks exactly the same as when you were allegedly responding to them. A compelte and total stubborness in the face of all evidence.
" The opposite is more likely the case, since he clearly states he doesn't want genocide and there's no evidence of him lying."
He advocates for genocide, therefore he wants genocide. This is evidence that his claim of "not genocide" is a lie.
"If you make a claim you are indeed obligated to provide evidence for it. Onus probandi is not merely a legal concept, it's basic conversation 101."
Okay, cite that claim. Do it. Prove to me this is the case. Now.
"You can say that, but it doesn't make it true."
Correct, your defence of Shapiro is what makes it true.
"I don't care about your claims of me supposedly "failing" and "debasing myself". Nothing you say can bother or offend me."
I am aware of this, and it is because of your hollow ideology that you feel nothing. I feel quite strongly about genocide, incidentally. Because I have pride and I see value in every human life. You have offended me deeply with your craven posturing. I don't expect you to understand, but know that it is your complete lack of connection to anything that makes you so pitiful.
"Your claims of advocating genocide are false according to the definition you yourself provided, plus all other 30 definitions found on"
Another lie. Forced deportation is right there in the text. You're done. You have nothing left.
2
-
2
-
@firstmoviesHD "Social security, standard of living and human rights are absolutely prime right now"
Compared to what? You said you're a uni student, so you don't even remember how it was 10 years ago.
I do though. I remember 10 years ago. I had more rights, better social security, cheaper food, cheaper fuel, cheaper energy, lower rent and higher pay. And that was during a recession (which incidentally, we're about to repeat. Looking good, you said?)
There were like, a dozen foodbanks back then. Now there are thousands. Tell me things are improving again, as you sit coddled in your uni creche.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@phoneticalballsack " Value hasn't been added, you're just making a profit"
I have refuted this. A coffee drink cannot exist without labour being put into coffee beans, the preparation of the cups, and the maintenance of the machines involved. To deny the addition of value is to deny the value of labour itself.
If you were right, baristas could theoretically do nothing and still turn a profit. But they can't, that's not possible.
Acknowledge this, or concede the point.
"there is no labor involved in a barista job"
You're lying, you do not believe this statement. Want to know how I know?
"An overpriced cup of flavored hot water is what's made"
This is a direct contradiction of what you just said. Either a drink is made, or it is not. I'll let you decide what you want to believe but my point is proven, and we will not be discussing this further.
"Good."
You're not even trying to defend your claims of privilege, I will interpret that as a concession. It's not something you actually believe.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ICanlearnToLoveMyself You don't understand, when I say "we've seen this movie before" I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that this has literally happened before. And it leads to fascism. The state backs off and makes way for private capital, which continues to make increasingly desperate moves to increase growth at any cost, demanding the state step in to 'protect capital' at every stage.
And the result? Trade unionists in jail, dissent crushed, democracy dismantled.
In some cases, private capital simply takes over completely, like in the banana republics.
It doesn't matter if you want fascism or not - you're advocating we move closer towards it.
"I dislike Socialism, because whilst Socialists point out the government is corrupt and controlled by rich elites, 'Political Capitalists; Politicians'. They immediately seek to empower the corrupt government to fight the corrupt government"
I am begging you people to at least skim the wikipedia article
It should be obvious that socialists do not want capitalist governments to run a socialist society. I shouldn't need to explain that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@vereornox1662 "At the first our struggle with the capitalists is a national struggle, so on our way towards socialism and then Communism, we will have to necessarily side with lower stratums of the national bourgeois against the international bourgeois"
Capitalism is international, so why shouldn't our struggle be?
And incidentally, the national bourgeoise have sided with the international bourgeoise. I'm not sure what your plan was exactly, but they've sided against the workers every chance they got.
" its whether those country will align themselves with imperialist interests, which they did quite early on. But we cannot say the same for modern day Russia, for the reasons I have already mentioned."
I think you should look into Russia's performance on the international stage since the fall of the USSR. It has used military and economic coercion to force smaller neighbours into serving Russian capitalism. This is what Lenin is talking about!
"The CHIPS Act only got passed because America shat their pants because of the major breakthroughs China made to their own semiconductor industry"
There's a few reasons why the CHIPS act got passed, another major one is that there's been a significant shortage of components for years now. It's not the why that's important though, its the fact that industry is moving closer to home, now.
"regardless, they are not proletarians, because an important component in what makes someone a proletarian is if their work produces surplus value, the professions in question do not, rather they generate revenues"
And how do they do that, if not through work? These people aren't exactly on Wall Street, they're not just moving stocks around.
Let's take bar staff as an example:
They physically transport goods, maintain machines and keep the premises safe for use. Thanks to the work they do, the drink they sell (which they also dispense) has more value than it did sitting in a keg in the brewery.
But the increase in value isn't speculative, we can't just stare at a keg and wait for it to become valuable. A worker has to work to increase that value.
And so the bar staff are proletarian, they don't own anything in the bar, but they make the raw materials (in this case, kegs) more valuable by maintaining a building dedicated to the storage and dispensation of beer. And their boss gives them a fraction of the money he makes from this.
Are they parasitic because somebody else brewed the beer? Is the brewer parasitic because somebody else grew the hops? But the hops farmer only grew the hops with machines make by another worker, and that worker can only make machines when another worker provides them with raw material.
We could chase this rabbithole down through the centuries, ultimately all workers depend on the labour of other workers. This isn't a helpful distinction considering my relationship to capital as a builder was the same as my friend who was a barista.
2
-
@vereornox1662 "because of historical experience, it dictates that Communist revolutions will not happen simultaneously across the whole world, rather they will be a national affair, at least initially. It is chiefly for this reason that the position of “Socialism in One Country” has won out and thus Marxism-Leninism as a whole"
This isn't the only reason why the policy of 'socialism in one country' won out. There's also the fact that everybody who wanted to attempt anything else was exiled, jailed, or killed. Let's not act like alternatives were given a fair chance.
Regardless, that was a long time ago and the conditions of the present day should be reassessed before applying dogma. For example, productive forces are far more heavily developed in more countries. Do we need the help of the lower-bourgeiose in these cases?
"Whatever you may personally think of Russia’s foreign policy, none of their foreign policy that I’ve come to be educated about were premised on those goals"
What's your opinion on Chechnya?
"Bonapartism, but for it to be so, this means that Putin is serving one section of the capitalist class to crush another, but which one"
There are no shortage of capitalists who got very wealthy as a result of loyalty to Putin, surely they stand to gain as a result of capital flight?
" Illogical. If this was the capitalist-imperialism, then it would be the other way around"
I'm not sure what you mean, but Russian imperialism will necessarily back Russian capitalism at the cost of foreign investment. You might not see the logic in this, but we're talking about somebody who thought it made sense to invade Ukraine. However you feel about Russia's role in regards to imperialism, you surely must recognise that none of this went according to plan. Putin didn't think this would happen.
"The one we are speaking of here depends entirely on the work of the productive labors, so much so that even their own work would not be were it not for them"
But almost all workers depend on the work of other workers, you're not making sense here.
"As I mentioned, the service workers do not produce surplus value, and therefore profit, but rather generate revenue"
This funamentally isn't true, though. These workers make one thing into another thing through labour, and increase its value in the process. That's surplus value.
I don't know how you distinguish this from 'generating revenue', since all work does that regardless of class character. The farmer and the machinist both 'generate revenue' if their produce is sold.
2
-
@vereornox1662 "The Trotskyists have not and will never lead a revolution"
Right, because dissent wasn't permitted and they were hunted down or exiled by a bigger faction. This doesn't make all analysis from the majority faction correct. So if somebody says to you "Well, we tried things your way and it always failed, are there alternatives?" it's not logical to say "Yes but we don't like the guy who came up with them so we won't discuss it".
"this imperialist endeavor, if we are going to call it that, did not serve the so-called Russian imperialism well"
I dunno, the ruling class seem to be pretty wealthy. It's clearly working out well enough to be worth repeating.
" so for Putin to act out in the interests of the petite bourgeoise, and arguably the working class"
Can we stop for a second and acknowledge that you're telling me sending tens of thousands of people to die is in their class interest? They could have all been doing something productive instead.
"The productive laborers do not need the labor of most service workers. How do they depend on each other then? Explain how their relationship is symbiotic as you heavily imply."
I'm saying that all labourers depend on the labour of other labourers, regardless of type.
"Serving beer into a mug isn’t making one thing into another"
It turns an empty mug into a mug full of beer. And before you tell me that doesn't count, think carefully.
Replace the mugs with plastic bottles and the beer with soap. Replace the bar with a factory. If filling vessels with liquid isn't productive labour, does that mean factory workers aren't making bottles of soap? They're just generating revenue and exploiting the chemical engineers further up the production line?
"All professions generate revenue, but only one kind, those belonging to productive workers, make a profit as well. To say that profit is made by service workers if that revenue generated exceeds the expenses, would be vulgar"
I'll admit, I haven't read everything Marx wrote yet. I just want to know...where are you getting this from? I really hope this wasn't what you got from Value, Price and Profit.
2
-
@vereornox1662 This doesn't make sense, you can't say "one party in one country in one specific point in time chose Y over X, therefore X is wrong because the guy who advocated for X predicted X was going to happen"
That's not even a logical statement, it's clear to me that you're reciting from memory and not an informed understanding of the competing models. Truly, I don't think you know what you're arguing against.
But the ruling class do not accept a weakening of power so long as there is somewhere else to take it from. There will simply be a move towards fascism in later years, and the working class will continue to lose out.
To be critical of the war isn't actually permitted in Russia, even calling it a war is discouraged. The 'support' is manufactured, same way the USA manufactures support for its wars. Russia could have done a lot more for its population, Putin can blame the west for many things, but NATO didn't force him to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a personal palace.
I'm not sure how to explain the fact that labourers depend on labourers. It's self-evident to the extent that I'll just ask you if you can think of a labourer that doesn't depend on other labourers. You'll see what I mean if you try to come up with an example.
After doing some reading I think I may have understood what you're referring to, but Marx seems to explicitly acknowledge that not all productive labour produces a physical product. You can create surplus-value without physically transforming matter. (I'm referring to his comparison of the teaching-factory to the sausage-factory here).
So if Marx says that a teacher does productive work by making his employer rich, surely bar staff qualify for the same reasons provided their relationship to capital remains the same?
2
-
2
-
2
-
@Alex-pr9kq I didn't misunderstand what you meant - I just corrected you is all.
" I meant that communism solves none of capitalism's problems"
Right, but as I established - you do not know what these words mean. If you tried to explain the concepts to me right now, you would make an error.
"Of course, most people don't have unique or even desirable abilities and somebody else can take their job, but at least the ones that do win in such a system"
This is an indictment of capitalism. You're not giving me a positive here. You're giving me a negative. What you just told me is "almost nobody is in a position to negotiate for higher wages". That's not a good thing! The fact that capitalism maintains a stock of unemployed people so that there are always replacement workers? Not good! The fact that we can't get pay raises but the cost of living keeps increasing? Not good!
"If a company makes a product that is made to last and builds a reputation for it, then it can sell it for a higher price, compensating the fewer sells they will make and giving them a unique place in the market"
Instead of explaining this one, I'm going to save time and ask you to look up what happened to the company that made "Instant Pot" a few weeks ago.
" thus you can't find a better salary, and there is only one organisation producing everything, with nothing guaranteeing that it will be of better price or quality"
Why does this sound like how I live now, under capitalism?
"And you can see this in pretty much every former communist state. In my country of Bulgaria, for example, salaries and working conditions were miserable compared to today"
Quick question: Was Bulgaria better or worse than capitalist Chile? Or Argentina? Or DRC? Or Ethiopia? I'd rather have lived in the Eastern Bloc than some of the capitalist hellholes from that point in history. And this is the point: All the wealth you enjoy in Europe, in the USA etc - it was paid for in the blood of those from the global South. Your semiconductors are cheap today because some 9-year-old was forced into a mine to scrape out cobalt or silicon. Is it worth it?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
There are enough socdems trying to sabotage Socialism already, they don't need our help.
Your question is a very good one though, it deserves a longer answer:
The sad truth is that we will be crucified by the media no matter what we present as. For example, take a look at the UK. Jeremy Corbyn didn't really advocate for anything radical, only a return to policies that had already existed in the 70's. And he was treated like a literal terrorist, it got so bad that he has been attacked in public at least twice, and an actual terrorist attack was planned to murder him.
Or Bernie Sanders, who isn't even mildly left-wing, the dude just wants healthcare and for amazon to pay taxes. Absolutely nailed in the media for crimes like..sitting in a chair. To this day anybody who even makes the same arguments as Sanders is going to be hit with that toxic association.
So it doesn't matter, a communist who wants to abolish class will be treated the same as a centrist who simply wants an end to the genocide in Palestine..why pretend to be something else if we'll be beaten down by the cops just the same?
Is recruiting hard? Yes. But we can't hide the reality of communism from other working people, its the only thing giving some of them any hope at all.
2
-
2
-
@isaacdalziel5772 " No, that is not the definition of capitalism"
Incorrect.
"Capitalism is not defined as two separate classes - that only occurs in certain flawed capitalistic systems, not all"
Then find me a single exception. Just one.
The definition you use says this:
" trade and industry are controlled by private owners"
What do you call that, if not a class?
Let's use the dictionary for that word, shall we?
"a system of ordering society whereby people are divided into sets based on perceived social or economic status."
Sure seems like private owners fall into that definition. So there are absolutely classes in society.
"So, yes, capitalism has been the state of affairs ever since someone had the foresight to sell their corn in return for any form of currency"
Absolutely not, trade 2000 years ago was nothing like trade today. Most trade wasn't for 'profit' as you understand it. Industry wasn't controlled by private individuals.
Even industry didn't exist in the way you think of it.
Feudalism isn't capitalism either, you think private individuals got to run the economy in the year 1200? No, there was a hierarchy where the monarch (who IS the state, bear in mind) loaned power and the right to property to various Lords and Knights. Random peasants couldn't just start a business and run the economy.
Sorry but you have to acknowledge the bare minimum here, that capitalism is a recent development in human history.
"It shows the problems with our current economic model, and how we can solve them WITHOUT falling into the trap that has killed so many millions."
Capitalism has killed more people in the past 50 years than anything else in the past 100. Capitalism IS the trap.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jamesbridger9878 " I also know that the biggest contributing factors to its eventual worldwide spread was via the free market and business"
So far you're 1 : 1 with Karl Marx here, so this is promising.
What happened after that? Capitalism obviously had an advantage over what existed prior to capitalism, but what happens now that the whole world is capitalist? If every economic system naturally reaches a conclusion (and so far they all have) will capitalism do the same?
"Why do people want to do stuff? this is a circular argument. Try again."
Grammatical error on my part which may have prompted some confusion.
However, "people want to do things" isn't a circular argument. It's a fact. I don't need to prove why, because I'm making an observation.
That said, there's definitely more incentive to contribute to a socialist society than a capitalist one. All I have to do is my job, and society gives priority to the needs of my social class? Sign me up!
"If people don't have access to the additional things I mentioned then we wouldn't have computers, phones, cars, etc"
Who is 'we' in this context? Because the luxuries of modern life are available only to a minority of people. That you think otherwise implies that you're in that minority.
But remember this: For an hour of my labour, I can buy over a kilogram of refined, processed chocolate. The cocoa farmers who fundamentally make that possible don't even know what chocolate is like.
How many people are in the world? Are they mostly like me? Or are they mostly like the cocoa farmer?
Even in the context of America, it should be noted that extreme poverty trends upwards in the USA, not downwards. Something is happening.
About the Trabant, it suffered because of material shortages, and this would have been a problem for private companies in similar circumstances. There were improved designs that would have been implemented otherwise, the DDR was kind of a special case.
To make a broader point about central planning, I want to point out that the USSR went from being a mostly underdeveloped backwater that was still living in the 19th century, to the secondmost powerful nation on earth. In what, 50 years? And that was despite the devestation of the war. Make your criticisms of the Soviet Union, but no market economy has achieved anything of this scale.
" However, they cant goo too cheap, because in order to make money you have to convince your customer that your product is worth more than the money they have. This is one of the core concepts of capitalism"
You're harmonising well with Marx again. Would you agree that this presents capitalism with a kind of contradiction? The incentive to increase profitability ultimately leads to practices that threaten profitability?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DragnEYE ""Money printer go BRRR" is not actually how any stable country gets its money"
...where do you think it comes from? The USA has a money printer that goes BRRR. So does the UK. So does the Eurozone. So does China. So does Japan. Did...did you think we just found a pile of dollars somewhere?
"said capital is of no value without it being earned for some serves or product (Which is a culmination of labor)"
You half-understand this, but it works in my favour, not yours.
"If those things aren't in a fine balance you get inflation, hence why increased government spending (With cash they print) lowers the value of the money in your wallet (Inflation)"
Oh sure, let's just ignore price hikes yeah that probably isn't a factor here
"Very very few people in history were motivated to do any great task without an expectation of reward"
What are these 'great tasks' that you don't expect anybody to do?
"The romans did not build the aqueducts so the people of Rome could freely use the water"
And Rome wasn't a socialist society, what's your point? That's it's not in the interests of the ruling class to improve our lives? Idk bro you keep making my arguments for me, you sure you're not a socialist?
"And if you think you could even HINT at a revolution in this day and age without the wealthy and elite immediately snatching up all your freedom and forming a totalitarian police state, you are blissfully stupid. You think overthrowing the government is hard? Well it is, but try establishing a new government after that!"
First - the totalitarian police state is what you get if you stick with capitalism. It's been two years since the cops started rioting over being asked to stop murdering people.
Second..revolutions happen, idk what to tell you.
"Only the rich with a strong outlet to the vast majority of people would be able to rally people in such a system"
Yeah you're just flat out ignoring what happened in every revolution, ever. I don't care what you speculate, it's ahistorical.
"As I thought, nobody here as anything of value to say."
Remember when I said we can tell you didn't do the reading
2
-
2
-
@jimmyjimmy7240 ""As compared to what?" If the idea is that a handful of countries are responsible for all 195, I'd like to know, besides "because they should, because they have money,""
This is an odd response, and I'm not sure why you wrote it. I'm making the point that we've proven TB can be almost completely eliminated, because we have done it in some countries. Therefore, that's the standard. Therefore, that's what I'm comparing other countries to. This isn't utopian, it's not utopian if I'm describing how things currently are. I'm just saying "do that...over there".
"I'd also like to know what the other 180 countries are doing"
They're almost all capitalist nations, so it doesn't really hurt my argument if you want to attribute some of the blame to them.
"As compared to what the numbers were 200 and also 50 years ago. As compared to the other dozens of issues that these greedy countries are helping to fix."
You keep making this point, but...I've addressed it.
"It seems 1/3 of TB deaths are in India, and they have a vaccine administered to children. India is also one of the richest countries in the world. Still America's or Europe's fault? I'm sure it is some how."
It's really weird that you keep referring to an argument I haven't yet made. Are you arguing with a version of me you imagined? Because it sounds like you're losing.
"Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with this. What you're saying is, "stop absolutely everything I don't agree with.""
Next time, read the full paragraph before writing a response. You clearly didn't, so I'm not giving your weird tangent a second thought. Try again, and this time stick to the argument I made.
"Vietnam can do whatever they want, if they disappeared, the world wouldn't blink"
Again, why can't you address what I said? I used an example of a country that used a different strategy to deal with covid-19 and got much better results out if it. Your response?
"I don't care about those people, if they all died nobody would care"
People, would care, actually. They would care if tens of millions of people disappeared. What you're doing here, is telling on yourself. YOU don't care.
" No one depends on Vietnam. When we locked down the economies, poverty and child malnutrition skyrocketed around the world"
Stunning defence of capitalism you mounted there, absolutely 10/10
So we've all pegged our lives to this thing called 'the economy' and if we don't throw enough bodies on the fire that keeps it going...people will die! But the economy will always collapse anyway, as proven by the endless amount of recessions we face.
Gee, you're really selling it to me here, Jimmy! Can't think why anybody would seek out alternative economic models!
Oh, by the way, poverty and child malnutrition were skyrocketing before the pandemic, even within the first world nations. Thanks capitalism!
"I wish the world were as simple as "just do it," I think that's how most children see things."
I've already made reference to very similar instances of us 'just doing it'. I'm not asking for the moon on a stick here. I'm pointing to something we managed 50 years ago and asking you why it's no longer possible. What, technology get too good or something?
2
-
"Success , civilisiation , humane societies, advancement are bound to be despised by the backward , the primitive and the incompetent."
Can you provide any reasoning for this? After all, not many people hate Norway or Finland despite the fact they sit above most other nations in these regards.
People don't seem to hate Ireland or Switzerland either.
"Many societies could and have benefited by taking the best of Western values: economic freedom ,civil liberties, rule of law , transparent government, civil discourse and intellectual pursuit,tolerance etc"
In the past 100 years, the west (mostly the USA) has bombed, invaded, sabotaged or sanctioned any third-world nation that attempts this. It has to, its the only way to maintain economic dominance.
Your problem is that because a handful of western philosophers said "yeah these ideas are good" you think half the world must have been built on those ideas. But that's not true, and never has been. There's never been a time where the west was built on economic freedom. There's never been a time where it stood for civil liberties. All the rights and freedoms you enjoy? We had to take those from our ruling classes. And so long as we have ruling classes, they're going to try and take them away again.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@wruxiz6104 UK. Yeah, turns out there used to be a significant left-wing movement here long ago! What we have today is a result of compromise. We got the NHS, huge social housing projects and national industries. And they were all attacked basically every year since inception.
"Even so, I always hate the "Well this country failed" argument"
That's fair, but the UK isn't the only country that stripped regulations and reforms. There's a reason for this but it will take some explaining:
When times are tough, cutting costs is a quick, short-term way to power through economic slowdown. A country might find itself tempted to simply get rid of social programs instead of raising taxes, for example.
The problem is that because capitalism cannot be sustained, there will ALWAYS be tough times. We're never more than a single generation away from a bad recession. Which means that the battle is never-ending, and unwinnable.
The UK is one of the best examples, by the way. Do you know what happens when other countries attempt social democracy? They get a military coup, people get jailed or murdered. Often with the blessing or sometimes direct support from places like the USA.
It's true that different conditions lead to different outcomes, but capitalism has never compromised once in 200 years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"For all the West's problems I still think we have the best system, this channel is an example why: you disagree and criticize the status quo while harboring a differing ideology and are allowed to speak your mind and profit from it"
I'd like to remind you that the west spent trillions upon trillions of dollars to murder millions of people, just so that those with a different ideology were kept from acting upon it. It's like you're saying "this town is so warm!" when in fact it's below freezing, but you're one guy with central heating.
"I don't feel exploited at my work in manufacturing"
That's nice, but you are. That's not my opinion, that's a demonstratable fact. Wage labour necessitates exploitation, otherwise it's not profitable to hire you. The maths only add up one way.
"And if the means of production were seized and the capitalist replaced by a committee that determined compensation it would be better?"
How could they do any worse? Every year most workers get poorer.
"that I want people, individuals, as much as possible to control their own economic destinies, not massive bureaucracies or corporations"
We tried that, and what happened? Individuals with the most money started making the rules, and the rules they wrote benefited people like them more than everybody else. Massive corporations exist because people with small companies become successful. You could put a law in place to break up the big ones, but they'll just overturn it by pooling their resources and buying new legistlation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@sihplak "No dude, the beard law is to oppress a totally different minority!"
Oh for real? Tell me more about China oppressing other minority groups, please.
And while you're digging that hole, try and explain away all the other shit there's legistlation for. No really, I wanna see you try.
2. You're making counter-arguments against claims I never made, I'm under no obligation to engage with this.
3. Again, who do you think you're arguing against here? You're reading from a script or something?
China literally makes anti-islamic discrimination legal and they aren't even pretending otherwise in this legistlation. There's even a part specifically for the concept of Halal!
Your craven groveling for a country that genuinely doesn't care if you live or die would be sad enough, but the fact that your apologia is justified in your mind because it's "the best socialists" doing it makes you lower than dirt. As socialists, are we entitled to bully, hurt and kill anybody we feel like? Absolutely not, and you're a traitor of the highest order for framing it this way.
2
-
2
-
@jlopez4889 " He is the one going up to the employer and asking for the money"
Not so, this isn't how employment works.
"I believe you are saying that there should be no trade what so ever, because one party might benefit more than the other."
That's not it, I'll explain:
The money that a business makes is money that the employees made. When your boss hands you the weekly wage, that's not his money that he made. That's money you made, by working. Your boss takes it, keeps some for himself, some for the business, and some for you.
That's why bosses with a lot of employees get very rich, because they're skimming money from a lot of people at once.
So getting back to the restaraunt, the money the business uses to pay for stuff was earned by the workers, not the boss. It might seem like I'm splitting hairs but if we're talking about capitalism its important to remember.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@lochnessmunster1189 "But the employer could also be employed there for decades, too. They could be an employee which holds everything together, and when they leave, the business fails too"
So could an employee, what's your point? Again, this doesn't address the fact that employees are paid a fraction of what they produce.
"If an employee is being paid more than they make for their employer, are they "exploiting" their employer?"
Yeah, they would be.
"Yes, lead poisoning, microplastics etc are an unfortunate side-effect. But can you think of any economic system in which individuals wouldn't seek individual profitable actions which could have a detrimental effect on others?"
Yes, it's called socialism.
2
-
@lochnessmunster1189 "But employees aren't paid a fraction of what they produce. I'll explain what I mean."
You're contradicting what you said earlier:
"it's true that (if the business if operating as intended), you will receive less than what you have produced"
"All inputs into a production, must yield a greater return than what they cost"
I'm being pedantic here, but only in total and against the cost of labour, too.
"But the makers of the component aren't being "exploited" by only being paid $10 for an item which adds, say, $15 to the selling-cost of the finished product elsewhere."
The people who make the component are still being exploited, they don't get the $10. Their boss gives them $3.
"A factory may pay $500 to an electricity-provider for the power, and this adds $2000 a month to the productivity. This electricity isn't worth $2000 to the electricity-provider: they can't make this sum using that electricity alone."
You're referring to the material cost. And it's true, a material cost is incurred.
But you said you'd explain why employees aren't paid a fraction of what they produce. And for the second time you've went on to making another, seperate argument instead.
"As for 'Socialism', are you referring to the State-controlled "common ownership" or an economy of worker co-ops?"
I'm referring to the working class owning the means of production.
2
-
@lochnessmunster1189 "But the makers of the components (which sell for $10 to another business) are also given materials, tools, land, buildings, knowledge, electricity etc. You have to consider this- they aren't being "underpaid"."
A question: Why not? My opinion is that almost everybody in the production chain is being underpaid, it's just that the exploitation is passed down the chain. Sure, the boss selling components knows that he's providing more value than he gets, but he also knows that's not his problem so long as he can exploit his workers. He's still doing great out of the deal.
" The employer needs to benefit from the hiring too, otherwise there is no point hiring that person"
It sounds like you agree, the exploitation of labour is necessary to turn a profit. It sounds like you don't disagree that it happens, you just consider it necessary.
"Yes, I'm referring to the material cost with the electricity company. Have they been underpaid, considering their input yields higher returns than what they're paid?"
Absolutely, yes. That's a particuarly sore point recently, given that the prices of energy have risen much faster than the prices of raw material.
"If a business-owner starts a business, hires others, works there too, and the profit made is his salary, is this "exploitation"?"
If he's paying the workers less than they make, yes. If he only pays himself according to what he produces (meaning he's earning about the same as his employees) then they're still being exploited as their money goes into company profits, which they don't get.
"The working class owning the means of production- who are the "working class"
The working class are those who don't own their land or own means of production, they have nothing to sell but their labour. So they exchange work for money.
Celebrities are an interesting example - I find it unlikely that very rich people aren't investing their money (and so, getting paid not on selling work, but on interest that depends on OTHER people doing the work).
Of course, nobody would take you seriously if you said a footballer is working class because he doesn't run a business - but we have other categories for such people.
You could say they were 'middle class', Marx also used the term "petit-bourgeious" to refer to people who weren't exactly capitalists, but who saw themselves as headed that way.
To use an example, somebody who starts a small business employing only themselves. They're not 'employers' but they usually aspire to be. So when analysing society, we can assume the "petit-bourgeious" will side with the capitalist class more often.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@TheNightshadePrince "I explained that without crony capitalism and harsh zoning laws and other anti-competitive government regulations big business isn't profitable or common place."
This isn't true. If ten stores can run profitably, they can run profitably if one person owns them all. They don't magically stop making money just because they have to pay less for management.
"Actually most ecommerce stores are small business, the platform they use is a big business but what's the difference between that and shops renting space in a shopping mall"
The mall charges higher rent?
"Yes, crony capitalism is that way but free market capitalism is extremely competitive and makes society in general better far better off. "
You're aware that free market capitalism invented crony capitalism, right?
Like, what do you think happens when people get rich in a free market? What, you think they're not going to put their money to work in a way that protects their interests? They're just going to let people compete with them? That's never happened in history.
" What I do see disappearing is cars, semi trucks, self checkout, robotic factories that don't hire people. Machines that are only here due to convenience, cutting out workers or other vices."
So the things that made people very rich are going to disappear? I don't see the people who got rich off them agreeing to that.
" because during the 20th century america became a service economy, stripping all the high paying jobs to china where the chinese would produce items for pennies on the dollar."
Why aren't the jobs in the USA high-paying, then? Seems like the problem is that employers are choosing to pay bad wages.
" The romans prefered human labor over machines even though they could have fully industrialized, they consciously choose not to."
This is ancient aliens level bullshit, no nation that uses slaves gives a fuck about the moral implications of automated labour
"By the movement getting critical mass, when a social movement gets enough public support there is no stopping it. :)"
When was the last time this happened, incidentally
2
-
2
-
@koflynn2159 "America didn't have people like Beria kidnapping a raping underage girls"
Sure it does, it's called the US army
"Bloody Harry Truman never killed millions upon millions of people just because he was scared"
Uhhh well the millions of people who died during US wars didn't just kill themselves, ya doofus
"when the Stasi head a conversation about maybe organizing a protest or even just disliking the government. The Stasi would then show up, arrest you, and the touture and possible kill you"
In Atlanta the cops shot a protestor for no reason, and when people got angry about it they ran over to a music festival to arrest random concertgoers. At least there was a way to avoid the Stasi, in the USA the violence dished out by police seems to be random. Hey, remember the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia? When the cops dropped a bomb onto somebody's house, burning the entire neighbourhood down? Did the Stasi ever do that?
"And the original video glosses over the worse aspect of Socialist/Communist countries: their completely lack of personal freedoms (freedom of speech, freedom of gathering, freedom of expression)."
Oh, the freedoms I keep losing in my capitalist nation? Yeah capitalism looking real free right now lmao
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mrreaper8826 " I get it, you're a communist or whatever. Your highest value is equality"
You genuinely don't even know what communism is, do you?
"demand their success for yourself for the sake of equality"
Again, at least read the basics first lmao
Until then don't come at me with this gradeschool drooling
"I'm an individualist myself and likewise my highest value is freedom"
It's not really a "value" if you only want freedom for yourself, is it?
"The reason you support Marxistism is because you're weak, feel oppressed and don't understand economics"
I honestly feel a little guilty about schooling you this hard, so I'm gonna pretend you got me here.
Ah, you got me so good, if only I could be rich then I'd abandon Marxism!
" The best time to plant a tree was 10 years ago, the second best time is now. "
Here's the thing: What if I did? Maybe some of us can switch sides. But we can't all do it. The economy relies on some people being poor, you already acknowledged that.
So if people are only Marxists because they're poor and oppressed...and capitalism requires that most people remain poor and oppressed...what's the point in telling me to become rich? A class of people are going to feel like they're getting screwed, and they're going to try to do something about it.
Once again, you're agreeing with me, and telling me I'm wrong. You don't dispute Marxism or class war, you just think you'll be at the top. But that doesn't magically mean the 99% stop existing just because you don't see them anymore, you know?
"You definitely don't understand stocks,"
No, I definitely know more than you. Watch this:
"You invest it in proper soil and it grows in value."
And why does it grow in value? How does a company become more valuable?
It's because of profit and growth, right? And who is responsible for that profit and growth? Oh, oh it's the workers? The people employed at that company? No? So why are they even employed? No answer.
"Also the free market doesn't cause inflation; you're insane if you believe that"
You're acting like energy companies in my country didn't just jack up prices 60% or more, with increased rises coming over the next 6 months. Despite getting a raise, I'm actually poorer now than I was two years ago. Yet welfare spending is down! We didn't even have stimulus packages! Explain that! You won't.
" The problem is that there are too many people who shouldn't be voting and getting stupid people into power. Democracy doesn't work"
Except both the Democrats and Republicans are working for the 1%, corporate donors and lobbyists have way more power than normies. In other words, you are living in exactly the country you want to live in. If only rich people could vote, economic policy wouldn't change.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@duderyandude9515 "It’s tyrannical to allow Nazis to be a part of public discourse?"
I mean the people who get wounded or killed as a result of allowing nazis to have free reign are losing their own freedoms, aren't they? So...yes. Allowing the attack dogs of fascism to roam freely, is an act of tyranny.
"But couldn’t someone say that allowing communists to speak or organise is ridiculous and tyrannical and justify censoring you thusly"
As a communist I have two things to say about that:
1. They would be lying
2. They will attempt to censor us anyway, even if nazis aren't suppressed.
I can't help but notice, nazi rallies where they have been held have enjoyed police protection and support, but left-wing groups are intimidated, attacked and arrested by the very same police. Look at how well nazis get treated when they call for an ethnostate, and compare that to how BLM protesters are treated.
I could genuinely talk all day about this, while nazis are given freedom of speech, anything that actually opposes the status quo is already being censored, often by the very same people who demand freedom of speech! We're seeing the banning of books in schools, harassment of left-wing politicians, in some places the literal overthrow of elected left-wing parties!
"There will never be a person born anywhere that is fit to be another person’s master in that way"
Interesting, so do you also believe that we shouldn't have laws or judges? Going to prison is a serious loss of freedom, and we cannot guarantee infallibility in our justice system.
"To conclude, let me quote a socialist you may agree with, Rosa Luxemburg"
Of all the people to quote, did you really have to pick the one that was murdered by fascists? Because that kind of proves my point. They're coming for us even if we grant them rights. There is nothing we can do or say that will placate them. Imagine how many millions of lives would have been saved if the nazis had been suppressed back then.
"otherwise you are only arguing for your own freedom and wishing to censor everyone who disagrees with you, which is no freedom at all."
Slight correction: I only want to censor the people who want to kill me. The alternative is being killed.
2
-
@DudeRyanDude "I'm not allowing them to commit hate crimes or make direct threats of violence towards people"
Quick question: Would you grant the same leniency to ISIS? Or even organised crime? Is meeting up to talk about robbing a bank or planting a bomb something to be encouraged or discouraged? Because any incidence of either necessarily goes through a technically legal phase of planning and networking. Do you consider it optimal to step in before or after shit actually hits the fan?
"How arrogant is it of you to assume that any argument that has been made or that could be made for fascism in the future is so bad that it mustn't ever be discussed?"
Is empiricism arrogant now? Do we make room for all ideas in our universities? Should we allow professors to teach any model of physics they please, even if they are centuries out of date? Would this even be practical? Wouldn't it negatively impact the amount of time spent on real science?
" If fascism is so obviously false, then what are you fearing? It almost shows insecurities on your own part."
...yes, I have insecurities about allowing fascists to recruit and organise. Because they kill people after doing that. It being a false idea doesn't mean they won't convince people to murder others in the name of it. Again, we've seen what discussing it achives, and that is terrorist attacks.
"Fascists genuinely think that communists are dangerous so they wouldn't be lying"
Fascists routinely switch between portraying their enemies as being overwhelmingly strong and appallingly weak. They also wildly change who is and who isn't a communist. There are no 'genuine beliefs' there. Fascism is not an ideology in the sense you and I understand it. It is a base reaction. The thing about fascists is that they are all liars. Do not take them at their word when they claim something is dangerous. (Side note, in the prior post you didn't specify this hypothetical person alarmed at communists was a fascist. Not noteworthy but I felt it was worth pointing out)
"I'm running scared because you are advocating for a Ministry of Truth"
Okay, now this in particular is a lie. You don't believe I have done this. It seems futile to clarify when you're going to make things up anyway but for the sake of it: I do not advocate for a centralised authority to dictate what speech is and is not acceptable. I can see where this is headed, though.
"And when you say that you will be censored anyway, that doesn't justify you censoring anyone else (tu quoque fallacy)"
That's actually not what 'tu quoque' refers to, but you are correct that it is not my being censored that justifies censoring fascists. The threat posed by fascism justifies censoring them. This means that even if my rights are guaranteed, it is still morally just to censor fascists.
"plus I'm advocating for a system where you can voice your views and so can a Nazi. I'm not advocating for you to be censored in anyway"
I'm really not concerned if you advocate for it or not, I'm explaining to you that my being censored is the outcome of allowing freedom to nazis.
"I think the criminal justice system is a necessary evil that is in need of serious reform"
Just so you're aware, this is a concession and we could end the discussion here. You acknowledge the concept of necessary evil, that a level of authoritarianism is necessary to protect people. That's it.
"but when it comes to legislating people's thoughts and speech, there is no appeal"
I genuinely don't know what this is in reference to. Somebody could certainly appeal that they were not actually a nazi or fascist, if that's what you mean? They could break with any fascist organisations they might be involved with?
"Once again, you seem to be insecure in your own beliefs that you couldn't convince a fascist that they are wrong."
Fascists don't care if they are right or wrong. It's not about that, to them. It's about murdering people.
"we are dogmatic and tribalistic (in many ways, I think that's why you hold your views on free speech if I'm honest"
Incorrect, my views are informed by evidence. I have looked at what happens in countries where nazis are allowed to operate and compared them with countries where nazis are not allowed to operate. When are you going to do this?
"but it doesn't help if you force them underground, into back alley organisations"
It does, actually. It does help if you force them underground.
Ask yourself, do political movements in repressive dictatorships get bigger and stronger when they're suppressed? No, the opposite happens. As an activist myself, I wouldn't be able to do a tenth of what I do if my organisation was illegal. Additionally, I have personally met people from countries where their dissidence IS banned and they DO risk prison. It makes recruiting and organising extremely difficult to do! That's the point!
" If you make them voicing their view illegal, then the boomerang effect will make it a lot easier for them to give in to other crimes like hate crimes and acts of violence because simply speaking is illegal for them."
But they're already doing that, hate crime is already increasing, terrorist attacks have been on the rise. They got their freedom of speech and now they're killing people. You need to acknowledge this. Every fascist terrorist was once acting legally. Every single one could have been stopped. Every single one.
"You can't argue from hindsight like this because nobody has the knowledge required in advance to know what the consequences of all speech will be"
But I'm not talking about all speech. I'm specifically referring to how the far-right conduct themselves. And actually, we do have the knowledge required to know what the consequences of far-right speech is. Never forget: The recent wave of fascist terror was predicted. We knew it was coming. So clearly, what you said isn't true.
"The vast majority of people are moderates that aren't communists or fascists and they see these ideologies as extreme. You would fall under that bracket of an extremist and would be censored"
Again, that's already happening, in a society that grants nazis free speech. You're starting to understand, I think.
"They would appeal to the history of communism and the many famines and millions of deaths that entailed. They would say "Imagine how many millions of lives would have been saved if the communists had been suppressed back then". You're ideas would be considered dangerous and communism would be criminalised, no matter how right we consider it to be."
It's not an argument they would win, since communism is demonstratably less lethal than capitalism. And it's not even close.
Perhaps I'd be criminalised anyway, maybe I'd go to jail regardless. And then the fascists would take over and execute the moderates.
"It's impossible to violate the free speech of someone else without in potentia violating your own free speech."
Again, my free speech will be taken away from me regardless. So to me, there's no additional risk. There is a risk, but the risk doesn't decrease if I support free speech for all.
"You keep framing this as if I want to give fascists their way, where they can censor whomever they please and kill whomever they please - I'm not. I'm simply allowing them to speak as I allow you to speak"
Okay, here's where it gets good:
Tell me, when WOULD you decide to crack down on fascists? You've already said that it's not at the 'speech' level, so how bad does it need to get? The riots? The assaults? The bombs? The seizure of power? The part where they start taking away your freedoms?
I hope you didn't pick that last one, because if you did...it would already be too late. By that point, I'm already dead and there's nobody left to help you.
Just like how you don't wait for the entire building to become engulfed before calling for the firemen, you don't wait until after fascists take over to try and stop them. Because if you wait, you have already lost.
And if you draw the line lower down like at assaults? You're basically allowing them to grow and instil fear into a population, at the cost of one or two of them sometimes going to jail. Sometimes. Again, since my position is based on evidence I'd like to point out that fascists have quite literally eviscerated people in broad daylight and escaped jail time despite being caught. Recently. Like, within the past few years. There are other, more complex reasons why fascists tend to get away with crimes like assault and attempted murder. You're not quite ready to hear it yet.
2
-
Post was too long, last part:
"As a gay man, there are many religious people who want me dead because of what it says in their fairytales"
I hate to be the one to break this to you but...those people would still be homophobes in a secular society. This is a tangent but I will explain:
You were right earlier when you said we don't always act rationally, our ideas are not the product of a careful thought process designed to select the most logical one. Nor are they due to emotive reaction. They're not even a combination of either!
The ideas we hold are the product of the particular circumstances we find ourselves in. The arguments for and against slavery are the same now as they were hundreds of years ago, so why has the perception of slavery changed? Because the world changed.
Side note: Ever notice how the ideas most dominant in a society just happen to be the same ideas as that of its ruling class? Is that coincidence? Seems like if there really was a marketplace of ideas and we really were just capable of hashing it out like that...there'd be some discrepancy, you know?
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that homophobia provides a material benefit for certain types of people, and therefore it will continue to exist until this material benefit is taken away, or the cost is too high to justify it. Religion itself isn't to blame.
Tangent over, to get back to banning Decartes because he thinks animals don't feel pain: We don't have an epidemic of people hurting animals because they don't feel pain. So what would we be trying to prevent, exactly?
I'm not trying to censor ideas for being 'wrong' or 'offensive', I'm an antifascist who understands that this is the only way to stop a death cult from taking over and killing everyone.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@michaelthayer5351 " You contradict yourself, you say that even the Taliban wouldn't do something like to their own citizens, then turn around and say that those who rule the West would gleefully sacrifice their own. "
This isn't a contradiction, western leaders are guided by an ideology more bloodthirsty and dangerous than simple theocrats
"While yes governments are generally always willing to sacrifice individuals for the group"
Except the group isn't benefiting here, is it? In fact, life is getting worse, not better.
"And the goal of these asset freezes is not to kill millions, its to weaken their hold on Afghanistan, and perhaps even lead to a popular uprising that removes their government allowing aid to be brought in"
Nothing stopping aid from entering Afganistan, the Taliban aren't going to refuse it. This is robbery, that's all there is to it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@billystanton1522 " It's terrible and the majority of the problems are caused by religious extremists"
You're ignoring the part where Yemenis are being murdered with weapons built and sold by the US/UK for profit.
"You don't know what's happening to the uhygurs"
They're not actually being murdered, ok
There's no evidence for this.
"The US isn't the one kidnapping and holding people for randsome in Afghanistan and Yemen"
No the USA does that to its own citizens instead.
"And if you think the famines were caused by the US then you don't understand the problem. Afghanistan has been dealing with famine since the USSR invasion which again led to crisis in the first place. "
Right, right and the sudden massive increase in starving Afgans is just a coincidence? There's no way out of this, the USA cannot avoid responsibility. America needs to return the looted assets to Afganistan or they will die in massive numbers. That is the bottom line.
"Actually the US funded rebels who fought back against the USSR"
Bin Laden. It's okay, you can say his name if you want. The USA supported Bin Laden. It was in newspapers at the time, we can admit that now.
"Again there would have been no need to fight the invading USSR if the USSR did not invade in the first place. "
You're trying to deflect this on the USSR without asking yourself what prompted the USSR invasion. That won't work.
"The vast majority of the indigenous people died from disease, not systematic murder"
This is genocide denial. Native Americans were forced from their lands. We know this, because colonists of the time specifically wrote that's what they were doing.
" Palestine is not a genocide, it's a land dispute"
This is genocide denial. Palestinians have been forced out of most of Palestine, and are subjected to brutal oppression and murder. You refuse to acknowledge any of it.
Sorry, but there's no coming back from this. You're trying to make excuses for the extermination of entire ethnic groups. It's Wednesday, and you decided what you should do this week is make excuses for genocide. You're scum, truly the lowest humanity has to offer, and I hope you meet the same fate as every other nazi traitor.
I tried, I really tried to help you avoid doing this to yourself, but you refused. You'll deny, deny and deny some of the worst crimes this world has to offer. And when you finally acknowledge them you still find a way to blame the victims. That's not a normal thought process. That's not what normal people do. Not even the average capitalist apologist is this twisted.
Get help, because you badly need it.
Don't reply, I'm not reading.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pedropradacarciofi2517 "Again, the only power they have is to make offers. They can't force you to take their offers nor stop you from getting what you want somewhere else"
No, this isn't true. They absolutely can stop me from getting what I want elsewhere, by buying the competition or otherwise denying it. This genuinely happens with increasing regularity.
And if you think I'm not being forced to accept an offer when the alternative is death - that is truly concerning.
Remember when Texas had that big freeze last year and people who didn't accept the price gouging for heat just died in the cold?
"Only if government is involved and restricts freedom (by regulating their competition for example) could you make an argument you were forced to trade with them"
The government is a capitalist government, so that is still capitalism's fault.
"Government beeing (acording to you) designed with corruption in mind is still not the fault of freedom"
We're not talking about freedom, we're talking about capitalism.
"What I find most bizzare is that you seem to understand how government is untrustworthy and has all the wrong incentives. But isntead of wanting to reduce it's power and maximize freedom you want to give it even more power"
No, I want the capitalist government to be dismantled. You don't understand what capitalism or socialism are, so this doesn't make sense to you yet. But for now just know that socialism is not about making the government stronger.
"Banana republics only existed because of local government. Yet another example of how economic freedom is not to blame"
No, the government literally stopped existing in banana republics. You had the maximum economic freedom possible, and zero government regulation.
But if there's no government or state...who is the most powerful? Private companies are. So private companies became the new government. And they ran things according to what made them the most money.
This is why deregulation doesn't actually fix anything, it's just the government letting a private company decide what is best for everybody.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@BennyBigIron " Stop attacking the English language with misleading redefinitions of existing words"
Taking no lectures from you on this, it's not up for debate. You are not the arbiter of English.
" Neither of us can prove our beliefs about the origins of profit, and therefore any discourse we have regarding it is a philosophical standoff. End of story."
The labour theory of value is actually pretty easy to prove. If workers aren't the source of value, then removing workers shouldn't remove the value. But it does, so they are. Easy.
" Or would you rather cast baseless claims with the soul aim of defacement?"
It's not baseless, you are simply incorrect. Feel free to back your claim up with evidence, anytime.
"But let’s delve deeper below the surface like I said we should originally. Imagine you have a neighbor who has a nicer house than you, can buy better food than you, and has a faster car than you. On the surface you might be thinking, man I hate that rich prick, because he has more than you"
I don't need to imagine that. Because it is true. My neighbour does have a much nicer house, a nicer car, a better quality of life.
I don't hate him at all. I'm not even jealous. He's a nice guy and I'm glad he's my neighbour. I don't know what point you're trying to make. Why should I hate somebody for these superficial reasons?
"Do you seriously think you deserve everything he earned with blood and sweat and gallons of tears? If you do, then yeah, that sounds pretty greedy to me"
Okay, and if I don't think that? What then?
I guess it must prove the inverse, right?
"I say; I don’t really know, but I’m sure it’s less than the body count of Soviet Russia."
Millions of people starving to death every year because the USA refuses to abandon its death-cult, sorry but I think America overtook the USSR in terms of deadliness a while ago.
"You say “Pretty sure the more dictatorships have been created by the USA than by socialism”
I say; no actually, the US is a Democratic Republic, we vote for our presidents"
Major concession when you ignore what I said so you can pretend I said something else.
" The fact is; human beings are greedy creatures. We will ALWAYS want more"
Prove this empirically.
" It is what the US has done so far"
The USA has done more to attack the rights of workers and done more to enshrine the rights of monopolies than any other nation in history. It's the opposite of what you think.
" by all rational accounts we’re doing great"
Not by any standard. The economy crashes every 20 years. Poverty keeps getting worse, the nation is now fully in the thrall of defence contractors who are now so rich they can just pay for wars to happen, and capitalism is about to destroy our only ecosystem.
It's not just bad, it could hardly be worse.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
InfoCatch "Name the famines that result in more deaths than Socies or Commies"
Let's see, we have Ireland, Pakistan, Bengal, India, Niger, Madagascar, Yemen, Sudan, I could go on...
Don't believe me? Check with the UN estimates. Depending on the year, between 1 and 9 million of people die of hunger annually.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@HM-wi4ou " I suspect the law you're talking off has been shoddily translated"
No you don't.
" You're just straight up lying about the radio part"
You can pretend the document was badly translated, but you can't pretend it doesn't say what I claimed it said.
" I expect that from a CIA brainwashed person like you."
Lmao, we're already at the "CIA writes Chinese law" stage of your freakish conspiracy theory?
"Which means that if you reject the radio, or other public services, out of religious reasons, you're probably an extremist. That part of the law is completely reasonable within its context"
First - the motivation isn't actually specified so you're lying
Second - Even if you're right, that's absolutely not reasonable, and if you think otherwise you're a fucking monster.
Fuck me, I reject my own state media, should I be put into a camp too?
"You see a single translated law and don't stop to think about whether it's enforced"
Those camps seem pretty full to me bro, seems like the law is being enforced one way or another. If they didn't plan to give themselves as much room as possible, why include dumb shit like beards or media usage? You don't have an answer for that.
"You just immediately jump to being a vile imperialist shill."
Here's the thing - If you defend state repression of a people due to their cultural practices or religious beliefs...you're the imperialist here. Because this is a carbon copy of EXACTLY the kind of shit the USA or European empires used to do.
How low are you willing to stoop? We haven't even started to talk about the other abuses yet. Going to tell me those also aren't happening? Or that it's good? Going to go all the way and cheer this crime against humanity on?
And for what? For a nation you've never been to, will never visit, and which wouldn't spit on you if you were on fire? THAT'S what you're loyal to?
How utterly servile.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spunkymonkey5102 "what you are describing is true, is because of rampant inflation, this is caused by the government printing to deal with the bloated welfare state"
It's not true, because if it were true, profits would be affected too. But they're not. Profits and productivity are both increasing. Wages are not increasing at nearly the same rate. But inflation should effect them all equally, since we're all using the same currency.
Additionally, the welfare state is shrinking, not growing. There's proportionally less going into it now.
" thus the amount of money you are getting seems to be less and less because money is worth less and less"
No dude, I promise you it doesn't 'seem' to be less and less. I'm just not getting paid as much.
" this is a product of socialist policies not captialist."
You live in a capitalist country with a capitalist government, that has never been run by socialists, where socialists have no power or influence...and you're telling me the policies are socialist? Explain yourself.
" price was invented as a rationing mechanism"
Okay, so explain why things which are cheap are still subject to this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vereornox1662 "Okay, so if we can’t utilize the productive forces we created to try to find some kind of solution, I was kinda thinking that we should be going nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc"
That's just energy production though, which isn't the same as industrial capacity.
We already have the solution, the solution is socialism.
"and also look more into the carbon capture and storage and not just dismiss it as a ploy for the oil monopolies to make more profits"
That's all it is, sorry to say. The problem is more than just CO2, although that has the biggest long-term consequences. But if we solved carbon tomorrow, we'd still be in trouble.
"But you’re saying we are “beyond the point of sustainability” whatever that means"
What it means is that the current levels of ecological damage cannot be sustained by the ecosphere. Some parts of the world are dying, some parts of the world are dead. Our industrial efforts have caused a mass extinction already, and animal populations are dropping.
"Besides, don’t all those scientific journals basically agree that what they say will happen to humanity isn’t going to happen in our lifetimes anyways, you don’t think we are going to find some way around this and adapt"
This...isn't what they're saying. And that's a very poor strategy regardless.
"rich capitalist countries that have to protect their monopolies from developing powers, most like Russia and China"
It is definitely true that the USA sees Russia and China as rivals, and does attempt to sabotage their development. They want rivals to industrialise less, while they invest in additional factories at home. But this is capitalist squabbling, and doesn't have any bearing on our solutions to the crisis. Notice that the USA isn't actually trying to do any serious environmentalism, it's just pretending to for political reasons.
"Well, I specified eco-socialists since that is the camp that goes after Haz over his views on the environment"
Haz's ideas are incompatible with all socialism, not just the degrowth faction.
"Well as I’ve implied, it also makes sense for people from the underdeveloped and developing world, why should they overall have to live with a comparatively lower standard and quality of life than what we have here in the developed world"
I will concede that some countries do need a minimum level of industrialisation to provide for the people living there. On a global level we are way past capacity, but its very centralised. The industrial centres of the world need to be doing a LOT less, and the underdeveloped parts of the world need to be doing more (but not a LOT more)
1
-
@vereornox1662 "How will it be organized to solve climate change? I’m sure you have your own vision, well Haz does too, which I kinda already touched upon it."
You could write an entire book on the subject, and I'm not prepared to do that here. Suffice it to say there's nothing in the world that couldn't be replaced with a version that benefits society instead of capitalists. Public transport could be widely accessible and cover urban areas, we could stop designing cities around cars, industrial production could be based on what society needs most of, not what capitalists make the most money out of.
"Okay, but you are only saying that because that stuff is in the hands of the oil monopolies."
No I mean it, it's an unproven meme concept we don't need to consider. The solution is to stop spraying CO2 into the world at the current rate.
"what then should humanity do if their striving to advance themselves will just lead to more ecological catastrophes?"
We aren't advancing. All this tearing up the planet, all the resources wasted..and for what? Lithium strip-mining isn't helping countries stabilise electricity supply, its just being used for disposable vapes and cars that like to slam on the brakes randomly.
All that concrete produced, yet where are the homes and the hospitals?
What I'm getting at here is that you can both drastically reduce industrial activity, AND vastly improve the lives of everybody on earth. Since most industrial activity isn't actually helping anybody. We're literally just spinning economic wheels.
"How though? As Communists we posit that all the industries will inevitably come under the control of the proletarian class who will wield them for their own purposes, further developing them and advancing them"
Some context:
When Marx wrote this, much of the world had yet to industrialise at all, and the proletariat were an emerging class.
That's not the world we live in. The peasantry are mostly gone and the productive forces are developed. When conditions change, so does our analysis. That's what Marxism is about at its core.
" the advancement of the socialist mode of production, that it will create the conditions for Communism to be realized"
We've had the conditions for communism for a while. We're not going to "one more factory will do it bro" our way into communism. We have enough factories. The revolution is not currently lacking in factories.
" If anything those socialist that you speak of are anti-Communists if they want to stunt development."
I'd like to point out here that you're taking cues from the guy who sided with a far-right government after it started a brutal war because their precious feelings got in the way of some diplomatic tensions.
Yeah, somebody in this thread is an anti-communist alright. It's the guy who had an oppurtunity to side with the working class, and threw it away to side with capitalists.
"By “global level”, you mean the rich capitalist countries"
Actually no. If I wanted to refer to rich capitalist nations, I would have said 'the global north' or 'the first world' or 'the imperial core'. Instead, I referred to the planet.
" but why do you want to police how much they can develop? Very colonialist mindset, ngl"
You've resorted to making things up now, fyi
1
-
@vereornox1662 "Okay, we should stop spraying less CO2 into the atmosphere, but how do we do that? Should we advance our industries and our methods to find ways to reduce pollution by these industries and having renewables wherever necessary, or degrowth? Seems like you advocate for the latter later on in your response"
One of these reduces CO2 levels, and one does not.
" I don’t deny there is overproduction and thereby waste under capitalism, if “industrial production could be based on what society needs most of” like you said earlier, why would this be a problem"
It wouldn't be.
"So of course the poor, developing or underdeveloping countries aren’t going to able to build homes and hospitals under this arrangement"
Right, but you'll notice not even the countries which could build homes and infrastructure are doing so.
"Okay, so here we go, where you seem to advocate for degrowth, so how exactly are you going to go about “drastically reduc[ing] industrial activity, AND vastly
improve the lives of everybody on earth?"
Via a socialist-oriented economy. The current state of affairs has our economy working at full capacity, for private profit. Take away private profit and we need to do a fraction of the work. The amount of work it would take to improve our lives is still significantly less than the amount of work we're currently doing. Therefore, industrial activity will decrease and quality of life will increase.
"we can use all that in a different way, so why not just do that?"
Because of the impending ecological catastrophe, which has already started.
"What “far-right government” do you speak of? Russia? Okay, you’re also gonna have to be more specific on what people you talk about I’d rather not guess or assume if if its either me or Haz, but regardless, how then does he side with the capitalists"
Oh right, Russia is a firmly capitalist nation.
" If anything its the degrowth ideologists that side with them because not only are they preventing Communism"
Degrowth advocates are a tiny fraction of people with no influence. They're not doing anything. Right now, it's just an idea.
"Okay but “global level” implies that on a global level there exists the same level of development"
That is simply not what those words mean.
"But you are the one that said, that “the underdeveloped parts of the
world need to be doing more (but not a LOT more)” how is this anything but not policing how much they can develop"
I'm simply stating the fairly uncontraversial fact that it does not take the current level of industrialisation to provide for current populations. You've already accepted we overproduce by the way, and this is the logical conclusion of that.
I don't have any kind of official position anywhere, I can't be 'policing' capitalist nation-states lmao
1
-
@vereornox1662 "Alright so you advocate for the anti-Communist position"
No, you're mistaking me for Haz, who supports the capitalist, right-wing position.
I mean this comradely: You genuinely do not know what communism is. That's fine, we all have our concept of communism tainted by living in a capitalist nation. But I would be doing you wrong to pretend otherwise.
"As Communists it will be our duties to mobilize the working class to topple these monopolies and have economic matters rest in the hands of the people"
You have spent a lot of time and wasted a lot of words to tell me I'm right about the things I'm advocating for. We can draw a line under this: You agree with this facet of my position.
"But I don’t see why what you describe will result in a reduction of industrial activity, lets say for the sake of argument that there would be, but even this wouldn’t be the same as degrowth"
At this point I'd like you to clarify what you think degrowth means, because we might simply have different understandings.
"what I’d argue is that there would still be an increase in industrial activity, but this will be to further meet social ends"
I think you have either underestimated the amount of industrial activity currently being sustained, or you overestimate the amount of industrial activity that is neccessary to meet social needs.
This is my position: We are running surplus to requirements. We could do everything that needs to be done with far less.
In some third world countries specifically, this isn't true. But globally speaking, it is.
The second position I want to make clear: Current levels of industrial activity are not sustainable. We will choose to lower it, or it will be lowered by the consequences it brings about. Good luck keeping those factories running while they're underwater is all I can say.
"my position as is Haz’s being that, that thing is not gonna happen in our lifetimes anyways"
This is a completely inhuman approach to the matter. Haz is beyond forgiveness for this alone. You don't need to do this to yourself.
"Meh, somebody else's problem"
Even if that's true...he's talking about your children. And this is word for word the EXACT line that the far-right has been taking for my entire life.
'Not our business', 'future people will handle it'.
You don't get to throw people's lives away like that and call yourself a communist.
So even if he was right, that's still inexcusable. But he's not even right! Climate change is already here! What, did you think there'd be like, a specific date and time? No, it's a gradual process that has already begun. People are already dying, people are already fleeing their homes.
"so why can’t we just find some way around it and adapt to it?"
The word 'adapt' means 'change'. That's what I'm advocating for. I'm not, for example, advocating we do more of the thing that's killing us.
"Yes, but it is not part of the imperialist bloc"
Invading other nations and seizing their territory is imperialist, actually. Again, you don't need to do this to yourself. Nobody is forcing you to to become pro-imperialist.
"how Communist parties and populist parties can work together as part of a popular front."
I'd be willing to entertain this argument if the 'populist party' (lol) wasn't explicitly anti-communist. They want us dead, my dude.
"Maybe they are right now, but they are growing, and among the bourgeoisie their rhetoric is growing ever more popular, the aforementioned, infamous, World Economic Forum is quite notable"
Have you considered the possibility that capitalists are just liars? It's like when the USA says it wants to spread democracy. That doesn't make democracy bad, it just means the USA is lying.
"so how can you say that’s global"
I've been patient with you so far, but I draw the line at reading the dictionary to you. I'm not doing it.
"Even if that were true, this is still a very colonialist mindset"
Actually if it's true, it's not colonialist at all.
"they don’t want their countries chained up to the globalist institutions and dependent on the rich, developed countries"
I've been very clear that I advocate for a socialist economy, so what exactly do you think you're arguing against? I'll tell you: a version of me that your streamer daddy told you existed. He lied.
1
-
@vereornox1662 "So please do it again, don’t bother on actually elaborating on it."
This is especially ironic from somebody that literally just said "maga-communism". I don't need to elaborate on something you already implicitly acknowledge.
"Says the one that reduces Communism to economics"
You're just making things up again.
"see degrowth (and the whole green agenda for that matter), we see it as a reactionary and bourgeois ploy for the capitalist monopolies to maintain their dominance"
Okay I need you to understand something:
Anything, ANYTHING is a ploy for capitalist dominance...when capitalists are doing it.
But I'm referring to a socialist future, I'm assuming those bourgeois won't be in control, we won't be doing things their way. So, stop bringing up their agenda okay? Because I'm not following it.
"Degrowth ideologists advocate for the stunting of economic growth, as they take issue with growth as it has given rise to overproduction, waste, worsening of climatic conditions, etc., and from their socialist perspective they see it as being related to capital accumulation. We agree with them on that, because capital accumulation is anti-social, but we do not agree that degrowth is the solution, instead we believe that all those industries the capitalists have supremacy over should be taken over by the proletarian class and utilized for their own purposes, to meet social ends."
Okay, so demonstrate why the total level of industrial activity needs to go up instead of down. That's the only part you seem to disagree with me on.
"No, that’s not what is unsustainable, capitalism is"
The planet absolutely does not care what economic model we base society on. It will not distinguish between capitalism and socialism. Current levels of activity will cause disaster. We are guaranteeing the deaths of millions, potentially tens of millions of people. The ocean will not observe a red flag and leave us alone.
"How is it inhuman? We both acknowledge its going to happen"
So we need to take action now, not during a crisis. We can still provide damage control, we can still save untold numbers of lives. Your rationale for not doing so is "So what, I'll be dead so I don't care".
That's inhuman. If you don't understand why, you never will. But know this: You're in a tiny minority. Nobody will accept this.
" I’d argue your Malthusian approach is even more inhuman"
But I haven't presented a Malthusian approach, you're simply lying.
"What I mean is we adapt to what climate change will have in store for us"
Sounds good, let's start by accepting that climate change is real and our industrial activity is making it worse.
"Imperialism in the Marxist sense isn’t simply the invasion of a small country by a big country"
Fly to Moscow and argue with Lenin's mummified corpse if you don't like it, because that's who informed my understanding of the concept.
Russia is a capitalist nation that is desperately trying to claw back what it lost after the collapse of the USSR. It can't do that with capitalism, so its forced to do what all big capitalist nations do: start wars. All the boxes are ticked. This is imperialism.
"Okay so these populist parties have anti-Communist sentiments, but how can you say that this then means ‘they want us dead"
They're not actually populist, they're just basic right-wingers who will do anything to retain power. How do I know this? Because they're currently engaged in a war, massacaring civilians in an attempt to maintain power. You think they'd let socialists run the country after they proved themselves this ready to murder tens of thousands of people?
"The difference is, the World Economic Forum isn’t just some random organization, it reflects the bourgeoisie’s vision of the world"
And I'm a socialist, I have no affiliation with the WEF or any bourgeise organisation. Can you stop bringing them up now? They're capitalists, they're wrong, they're bad, we're trying to unseat them from power. We agree. Line drawn. Again...they're not actually going to do 'degrowth'. Again...they're lying. They're going to impose austerity measures and tell you that's what degrowth means. Stop falling for it. Stop listening to them.
"What a fascinating discovery, why make any distinctions between the underdeveloped, developing, and developed worlds then? They’re all developed"
You did this to yourself, by the way. Out of everything I wrote, you're losing your head over the most boring, casually observable, driest fact I had. All because you just don't like how I wrote it.
What's worse, that you're arguing with a fictional version of me? Or that you're losing?
"Your vision of socialism is why people become anti-Communists, your socialist camp will only succeeded in winning over the petite-bourgeoisie radicals, the professional managerial class, labor aristocrats, liberal academics and “intellectuals” etc., basically people that will be predisposed to agree with you anyways"
Unlike you, I'm actually involved with the organisational work IRL. Unlike you, my politics isn't based on whatever some bearded amateur in his early 20's says.
You know who agrees with me IRL?
Nurses, engineers, labourers, factory workers, postal workers, bar staff-
Just your average proletariat, really!
You know who doesn't agree with me IRL?
All the people you listed. Funny how that works! Funny how like, one of us actually does the work outside of the internet, and his experience is the opposite of what you speculate from your bedroom? Real funny how that works! I wonder what else we can extrapolate from that little factoid?
1
-
@vereornox1662 " If you support degrowth and other Malthusian agendas, even under socialism, then you are unwittingly supporting the Capitalists."
"If you want to do socialism, you're actually doing capitalist's work for them"
Weird how that only applies to me when I call for the working class to seize the means of production and not for you, when you call for capitalists to build more factories. Weird how that works.
"I primarily advocate for the total level of industrial activity to go up to as to advance the productive forces which are necessary component in attaining Communism"
The productive forces have been advanced, capitalism did it because socialists lost the struggle of last century. The job is done, we did it.
"How do you suppose we take action now then? You make this call to action as if the state belongs to the proletarian class."
Yeah it's a concept known as revolution, I really recommend the writings of Lenin, who had a good analysis of the topic.
"You advocated for degrowth here, did you or did you not? If so, then that is a Malthusian approach."
Do you realise that you've talked yourself into a feedback loop where growth is the only acceptable option, and anything else is 'malthusian'? Anybody who thought about it for a moment would realise that on a finite planet with finite resources, eventually we would pass the point where no, it's actually less malthusian to stop growing.
You're advocating for the strategy that will kill millions of people. That's the price for your dogma.
"Russia (nor China) has taken part of this division, so it cannot be an imperialist power in the Marxist sense"
You're effectively saying that we can only have one imperialist block at a time, only one 'empire' and everybody else is just living in their world.
I'll go tell the indigenous Sami people that the Swedish empire didn't happen then, will I? I guess Japan was just struggling against US dominance when it colonised parts of China and Korea? Ridiculous.
Russia is doing the same things that European imperial states did, only from a much weaker starting position. But the intent is still very clear.
"Yeah, you say that, but your apparent advocacy for degrowth is not convincing me, as for this idea of them lying. They are not lying"
They are literally re-industrialising the imperial core, what are you talking about
Read the CHIPS act and get back to me
"Nurses, postal workers (depends on what stratum you are referring to here), and bar staff are not proletarians lol, these are what we would usually refer to as the “professional managerial class.”"
This is the funniest thing you've written yet. PMC's are meant to be this type of white-collar worker, the 'office manager' type of guy. Clue is in the name, what do you think 'managerial' is in reference to?
What, you think the guy who cleans up the bar for minimum wage is a 'manager' of something? Who? The customers? Are you even looking up the terms before using them?
PMC was just some term coined by a dude writing a book recently, by the way. He's still alive even. You don't need it for class analysis, and most Marxists don't make the distinction.
"as its not just a matter of recognizing who is who in terms of class, but the social relations these classes have one another to the means of production"
Yeah wow, I wonder how any of the occupations I listed relate to the means of production?
Sure would be embarrassing (for you) if they all sold their labour for a wage...like the proletariat.
" and of course their class character as well as how they interact with other classes and their attitudes towards said other classes."
I specifically chose those examples because these are the workers I see involved with the organisation of the working class. On strike, supporting class struggle, consciously anti-capitalist.
I'm prepared to agree to disagree on a lot of things, and I don't think you're going to be convinced on the industrialisation argument.
But this - a fundamental misunderstanding of what the proletariat are - is definitely a line in the sand for me. I thought Haz was just some angry dweeb, is he going around telling people this horseshit?
This should be a major wakeup call. Wherever or whoever you picked this up from, drop it or them. Honestly I was a little irritated before, but now I'm just mad. Not at you, but whoever is bleating this anti-marxist crap under the guise of communism.
Genuinely, if you want help finding better places to develop your understanding, let me know
1
-
@Alex-pr9kq " I said that communism is worse"
I know, but the argument isn't very convincing. Put it this way: I'd rather have lived in Castro's Cuba than Batista's Cuba, know what I mean?
" it was mandatory for kids and teenagers to do unpaid physical labour"
Right but they weren't slave miners, is the point. Given how much money electronics are worth, why can't we pay the people who make it all possible fairly?
" I am saying that capitalist european countries, like Finland, which you can't blame for colonialism, were better off than communist european countries."
Depends when you want to make the comparison. It's known that Russian workers ate better than US workers during The Great Depression, for example. And in the GDR you could at least afford rent.
But I have a question:
If communism is so bad, how come everything got worse for Russia in the 90's? Shouldn't it have become prosperous and wealthy? Why did life expectancy drop? This is a trend with former socialist countries - everything somehow gets worse when the capitalists win. Happened in Chile, Burkina Faso as well as the USSR.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I suppose the first lesson is that political compasses are not worth very much.
A more indepth explanation is that capitalism will try and sweeten the deal when times get tough. A long time ago, capitalists could see that people were becoming interested in communism as a way of escaping poverty and misery. Capitalists didn't want that, they wanted to stay in control. So they used social-democracy to give people things like social housing, healthcare, education etc.
Life got a lot better for most people, and they didn't feel like starting a revolution anymore. Capitalism had to spend a bit of money, but it won. And when capitalism wins, fascism eventually wins too. That's why people make the comparison.
Not all communists oppose social democracy, there are other theories that would say that social democrats and communists should unite against fascism, since it is the biggest threat.
So the main points are: Capitalism only hands out the good stuff when its scared of losing. Communists see the ploy for what it is, and social democrats could side with either of the above when the shit hits the fan.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Why does the US put hamper socialist/communist nations? Because they’re not Allies"
Why do you think they weren't allies, Matthew?
"That’s arguable and people were starving and being killed in the streets by an overreaching government"
Same thing happens frequently in capitalism, what's your point?
"Better healthcare systems? Are you absolutely insane? Have you been to a socialist country? There are people walking around missing limbs"
Do people grow their arms back in the USA, Matthew? They don't, do they?
" continue to be responsible for medical advancements because capitalism provides an avenue for competition, which actually breeds success"
It's the opposite, medical companies flat-out refuse to do research on medical advancements unless the US government subsidise them. Never forget - coronavirus research was parked because it wasn't seen as profitable enough. The vaccine could have been ready. Millions of people could still be alive. But no, companies would rather focus on what makes them the most amount of money - like charging $500 for insulin, which costs pennies.
"People can’t afford a $500 emergency in America, people in the USSR had no concept of $500. At least Americans can eat a nutritious meal and can avoid bread lines."
Poverty is actually increasing in the USA, more and more people are on the bread lines. I'm in the UK and I've seen the number of food banks go from a total of like, two nationally to one in almost every town. Thousands and thousands of them. People can't afford food anymore. I personally have to eat less, too.
"America is getting worse from a financial perspective because banks have become way to powerful, the military industrial complex has become way too powerful, and lobbying has rendered the democratic element of the republic flaccid. Americas problems stem from the fact that it’s become more like a socialist country"
Super interesting how you're watching capitalism fall apart and you think to yourself "wow, how could socialism do this to us?"
"The American government doesn’t drag people out of their houses based on rumors and shoot them"
A man literally just got shot for not getting out of his car
" Yes, the US has strayed from the ideal, but we’ve had a history of success and have become one of the richest nations in the world for a reason."
Mostly from exploiting other people, then murdering them in the thousands if they speak out. Am I wrong? How come the USA keeps doing it then?
1
-
InfoCatch "It does not though"
Incorrect
"again whataboutism"
Not in this case, since the argument being made here is that Socialism is bad because X happens.
"Really stupid response, doesn't disprove literally anything."
I'm not trying to disprove it, I fully accept that people lose their limbs all over the world. But since there's no cure for losing your limbs, it's a very odd line of argument to make.
"Millions of people from any commie country could've been alive if they were not killed for saying they dislike the government"
No that's capitalism you're thinking of, capitalism is the one where millions of people died for trying to change the government. I think you meant to say that millions of people in China or the USSR died of famine? That's usually what people mean when they talk about the death toll of Communism.
"Medical companies do not flat out refuse to do research either, Wikipedia isn't a good source my guy"
Explain why the US government has to step in and fund research then? If the market was so good for innovation why does this happen?
"There's no such thing as 'bread lines' in the USA"
Go to feedingamerica.org and tell me that again
"Also, you're poor since you're unemployed and spend 80% of your life protesting Capitalism"
In my country, most people in poverty have full-time employment. You're just wrong.
"Ironic, you're allowed to protest because you live in a Democratic country. You wouldn't be allowed to protest in your Commie one"
Cuba has a long tradition of protests being allowed, what are you talking about
"Super interesting how you completely ignore the point"
The point being made is that America is failing because it became socialist. I'm pointing out that America is actually capitalist.
"Again, no source = never happened"
That's actually incorrect. It doesn't suddenly become true if I link you a source. The truth of the matter is independent of what I type here.
"And how many anti-fa members kill Conservatives"
I'm not sure, how many? It's got to be pretty close to zero, though. Because every time there's a politically motivated mass shooting in the states, it's always a right-winger. One side is bombing, shooting, and driving cars into crowds. One side. Yours.
" The USA has rarely done this stuff"
The USA has spent less than 20 years of its history at peace.
"if you're talking about coups in unstable dictatorship led countries, then yes, the USA doing that has caused more good than bad"
Guatemala? Chile? They weren't dictatorships, they were democracies that voted for left-wingers. They became dictatorships with explicit US support.
Weird you keep going on and on about my "right to protest", while under capitalist 'democracy' I keep losing my rights of speech and expression. I keep getting less free, not more free.
1
-
@matthewconte875 You've chosen to format this reply as a single paragraph with no breaks, so I'm going to do the same.
It takes some serious balls to say "solid infrastructure and a lack of random explosions" as the USA is dealing with constant train derailments that keep exploding lmao. "the fact that the antitrust laws and anti monopoly laws aren’t working is making America mimic a socialist economy" Oh, so because capitalists are doing capitalism that makes it socialism? "Have you experienced the blackouts, the gas shortages, the breadlines" Yes actually, all that is happening in my capitalist nation. One of the richest nations to exist. "Also, never responded to yeltsin literally not being able to believe that our grocery stores were real" That's because I don't care what the washed-up boozeman thought. "Socialism doesn’t work because there’s no competition in the markets. The markets stagnate. Cuba is a good example of this" There's a trade embargo against Cuba, genius. They're being forced to make concessions because the USA has effectively blockaded them. "Where did all the vaccines against covid come from" Oh you do not want to make this argument, those private companies had been doing coronavirus research before the pandemic, and chose NOT to make a vaccine because they didn't see the economic incentive to do so. Moreover, those medical companies refuse to do research unless the US government pay them money to do it! "small groups have become too powerful, much like socialism" No that's capitalism. "Socialism doesn’t work because it cannot work" No that's capitalism. "but capitalism is a much more effective system. It allows diversity" You literally just got done complaining about monopolistic practices. "Look at the American financial crisis with banking. Imagine if we were in a socialist country" Imagine if capitalism happened...in socialism! In a Socialist economy the financial crisis wouldn't have been possible lol. "How do you rise out of poverty in a socialist country" Why would I be poor in a socialist country? "Ask Cubans in cuba" Yeah I did, they said there's a trade embargo for the past 50 years.
"The capitalist nations economy is better so people have better quality of life."
How come our lives keep getting worse then? Why are MORE people homeless? Why are MORE people hungry? Why do my bills only get higher? Why can't my wages? You have no answer.
1
-
1
-
@matthewconte875 " Insane that you have no clue what you’re talking about"
You're pretending the US tourist ban on Cuba didn't happen. This is a lie, you know you're lying, its one of the defining features of US-Cuban relations. You're out of your depth.
"What does starting wars have to do with anything? The United States does start wars to stop communism and fight terrorism. They also do it for economic interests like oil."
Answering your own question, is it
"Do you know how money works? Do you know how leverage works? Do you know how taxes work? Do you know what securities even are"
In Capitalism, yes. Why would securities need to exist in Socialism?
"Lmfaoooooooooo all the richest people also live in capitalist nations"
Wow, almost as if there's some kind of link between people being poor and other people being rich. You realise you're constructing an argument against capitalism here, right?
"Wealth not only consolidates, it generates and emanates."
You're contradicting what you just said. If that's true, why are people in rich countries getting poorer?
"If you’re too poor to afford toothpaste, you should go to school, get a job, and fucking buy toothpaste"
Most people in poverty have full-time employment. What now?
1
-
"The west preaches the values of democracy, free markets and human rights and that has made the west the richest, most technologically advanced, militarily and economically strong place"
If that was true, what was all the plunder and genocide in aid of then? Just sport? A bit of fun?
"I argue with my friends that it is actually tyranny and corruption, done by our own African rulers"
Yes, because all of the African rulers who chose not to be corrupt were assassinated by colonial powers.
"Tell me how the west, colonialism & slavery that ended over a century ago is still to blame for that? I'll wait."
Did it really end? Because western nations still demand (via the world bank or wef) that African nations adopt economic doctrine that keeps exports cheap for western private companies.
Take Burkina Faso for example. Rich in minerals and metals, in Europe it would have been a wealthy nation. But France continued to extort it for money that it forced the former colony to borrow! And when a leader showed up who rejected this, who said that they needed that money to develop his country...they killed him!
And Burkina Faso was forced to adopt policy that could never yield long-term results, all for the benefit of the global market.
Tell me what the people could have done about this? If they struggle, they are murdered. And if they do as they're told, they remain the poorest country on earth!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KenCunkle "Tnat's so cute. They only had to destroy the environment until they could get rich enough."
Oh I'm sorry, did you think it was for entertainment? Well, consider yourself corrected.
"How rich do you suppose they will decide is "rich enough" for those leaders or their populations?"
These countries are capitalist, so that won't happen.
"without any evidence whatsoever, based only obn your imagination, that everybody wants what you want and will/would behave as you imagine you would"
...or maybe I've spent a significant portion of my life working in factories. You realise those still exist, right? You're TALKING to a factory worker who is telling you what we're all thinking - namely that we work too much - and choosing to dismiss it as 'fantasy'
What's your actual opinion on this anyway? Awfully quiet about that aren't you? What, gonna tell me that if workers were in charge, they'd push to work 18 hour shifts? No? So you agree with me then? No? Oh, so you think that the current productive capacity is just innate to manufacturing and won't change no matter the socioeconomic system in place? Yeah real smart of you dickhead, painted yourself into a corner there huh?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dudebros6122 "I was responding to you saying we invaded Venezuela in 2020 due to "paranoia" being high. "
Nah, you just lost track of the conversation, you're trying to talk about too many things at once.
"An incredibly shallow thought"
It's a fact. The USA has less than 20 years of peacetime.
"did we forget ww1? ww2? Wars of independence?"
Very interesting you're equating the 'stole land from the native population' with 'went to war with the nazis'.
"Now, with added context do you feel confident in your claim the US is stealing money from them causing them to starve? "
I mean you proved me correct, thanks.
"(but also consider the fact that the taliban only exists thanks to Soviet imperialism leading the US to fund them to begin with"
The USA had the option to not fund and equip the guys who would later do 9/11, actually.
"China isn't starting a nuclear war? Given that we both exist here to comment... no one has. "
Ah yes, I forgot. The USA has famously never used nuclear weapons on anybody. You complete embarrassment.
""(China)didn't side with climate change", well color me confused, how's that a good thing. "
Figures I'd have to explain that we're supposed to be siding against climate change, not with it.
""It's because any time they play nice and get voted in they are murdered." Shows how much you know. "
I'm right, and you're mad because you have no idea what the history of Latin America is.
" The US became hostile and started blocking trade when they became... guess what? A dictatorship"
Oh yeah? Because the USA was pretty friendly with Pinochet and Bautista. Why's that?
"And for the last bit you said, the US isn't occupying people all over the world right now"
This is a lie.
"The only reason the Soviets didn't do exactly what the US did in our timeline during the cold war was because their system of economics and management was vastly in-superior"
You mean inferior? lmao
And if they were really so inferior, how did it go from being a country of peasants to the second most powerful nation on earth in 50 years?
"And even though from my own perspective you're defending murderers"
You literally just said "It's ok when the USA kills people, if they're communist". Tens of millions died and you're okay with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnny196775 "You may disagree. But I and Chomsky (a linguist) are saying that by the definition of 'free' limiting the speech of those with whom you disagree doesn't qualify as free speech."
Marking yourself as a free speech absolutist is especially funny considering that you're whining about how annoying being corrected online is. What, I need to shut up but nazis should be free to demand your death? Make it make sense, lmao
" I have never seen speech alone end someone's being"
Oh very clever, so you've managed to squirm into the position that giving orders which kill people isn't killing people.
It's a good thing society doesn't waste time with that drivel, or all those SS officers would have escaped the death penalty. Damn, really IS odd how everything you believe is what would be most convenient for nazis. Why is that, Chris?
"You are so misinformed about gay history I have no interest in trying to educate you"
That's very interesting! See, usually education is specifically for people who are not informed. If I was informed, what use would education be? I'd already know it all? So like..huh?
Again, no comeback, no answer, nothing. You have nothing.
"You are assuming that the community center leadership speaks for the entire community"
Again, you've resorted to lies. Boring! I have made no assumption. I don't think that gay people are broadly allied with trans people because of 'community leaders', I think it because I do what you've never done: Actually gotten involved with these groups. I don't hang out with 'the leaders', you know? I meet normal people.
"You trying to educate me about gay history is equally bigoted"
lmaooo, transphobes trying to explain to me what is and isn't bigoted. Not happening Chris, just not happening.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelthayer5351 " That is the general idea of democracy that the majority rules"
Sounds great, let's try it
"Because today its group A and tomorrow group B."
But group A are the ones doing the oppressing, right now. I'd like them to stop.
"diverse in their ways of thinking and living, which drives them to have different ideas and goals regardless of social class"
I promise you, nobody, absolutely nobody in tens of thousands of years of human history thought to themselves "hmm...this substance is extremely toxic and causes permanent brain damage. I had better force everybody to breathe it in!"
That is, until capitalism made it profitable...
"reduces the world to a zero-sum contest of acquiring more for yourself lest others seize what you did not and in said accumulation derive the power necessary to dictate your life to you, robbing you of your pride, culture, and prosperity. Only trust can break that cycle"
Meaningless platitudes. There are material reasons why this happened, and you're ignoring them. 'Trust' isn't the big factor. Private profit is a factor.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MOFOSGTFO "Blaming capitalism is scapegoating the blame that should be pined on the Governments"
Those governments were formed at the behest of capitalists, explicitly to advance the interests of capitalists. Government didn't just fall from the sky, there's a reason why business owners and industry have substantial influence over government.
"The ideology of Capitalism rejects the idea of theft or exploitation and instead supports individual liberty and free will"
Only for those who own capital, as a worker I'm not seeing much of this liberty or free will. I can only do something if a rich person is okay with it.
Feed the hungry? Only if the rich let us. House the homeless? Again, only if the wealthy are okay with it. And they're not, they never will be.
We can't even handle a pandemic correctly, we all knew what needed to be done but because a few rich people didn't want to help, the worse case scenario happened. And now the pandemic will last for years longer than necessary.
" Yes global poverty, hunger, income spent on food, child mortality etc keeps reducing."
Idk where you live but in my nation those things are all getting worse. Our ruling classes are getting richer though, so clearly the economy is doing fine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bvidude8064 But were those authors writing for fellow philosophers, or for the masses? I think it depends on the specific work but given that many of these things were written for the purpose of educating people without a background in academic philosophy, and that people do manage to understand them, I feel safe in assuming the latter.
"It's currently being applied to race theory, leading to Blacks and White having their own 'truths', never understanding one another, leading to one side using violent protests"
I'm not trying to start a debate on the nature of pure, objective truth or anything, but..what you just wrote is a complete falsehood. Objectively wrong, no evidence supporting it.
People aren't out on the street rioting because somebody quietly studying at a university attempted to apply Marxism to racial politics. People were protesting because they were being murdered by the police for no reason. It would be exceptionally odd to suggest that there was marxist influence at work there, as if murder isn't enough of a motivating factor.
"It will be just as bad trying to apply it to the economic sphere (Marx states that extreme violence and deadly revolution of the proletariat against the capitalists is required"
Well, that could hardly said to be incorrect. The capitalists are out for blood the moment people ask for an improvement to their conditions, we see excessive brutality even when people demand that their existing rights be acknowledged. How are any of us supposed to engage with that peacefully?
"Another difficulty is knowing when it will actually stop."
But you agree that it would eventually stop, right? Presently, the violence and murder is guaranteed to never stop under capitalist rule.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterLambert2211 "Name one person that I follow that supports that or you have to admit what a liar you are"
Your boy sytx explicitly called for mass murder, this isn't even news anymore. Keep up.
"you act smug because you think it makes you look smart. It doesn’t, it makes you seem like a petty, spiteful, bitter child, and it only makes you look unintelligent"
I wasn't going to stop looking down on you before, but now I know it pisses you off? I'm doing it twice as hard. Even at my worst, I was never as low as you.
" your silence about the communist genocide going on in China, literally as we speak, the only interaction I have with people who are pro genocide is you."
I've been vocally in support of the Uighur minority from the start, you're lying.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@michaelthayer5351 "That is a real hard sell, Western leaders may be greedy and corrupt, misguided even in some cases, but they aren't as cruel as theocrats"
I mean this is something we can measure, I didn't just pull it out my ass
"For Theocrats there is one way to live and if you are not living in their prescribed manner then your human rights vanish, the death penalty for blasphemy or apostasy seems much more bloodthirsty and indicative of what theocrats believe, that their way is the only right one and there is no space for others."
Whereas the USA/west pulls the same shit, even if you DO follow their one true path. Usually when millions of people die it means something has gone horribly wrong, a great mistake has been made.
But our leaders have routinely written off millions of lives after getting everything they wanted! Remember: the USA defeated every single enemy in the 20th century. It won. But that wasn't enough, new enemies had to be invented.
"Which is why I am deeply mistrustful of all the Utopianists out there"
Real talk you're halfway into the death cult yourself, no wonder you're mistrustful of anybody who rejects it.
" They believe changing one thing or a few, or that if we just had the "right" people in charge it would usher in an ideal world and will use any means to enact their ideology."
This is comic book villain stuff, what are you trying to communicate here? That change isn't possible or that problems shouldn't be solved? This is fucked bro! That is not a healthy way to appraise the conditions you live in!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"resources are not finite"
This is scientifically impossible. If there was infinite matter on our planet, that would mean infinite gravity and our planet could not exist.
"mass shootings"
Yeah, from right-wingers. Your side. Maybe ask yourself why that happens.
"there is a reason why the US leads the world in medical innovation"
Correct, it's because the US government subsidises medical research. Medical companies would literally refuse to do basic R&D otherwise. So much for 'the invisible hand', eh? As a matter of fact, preliminary research into coronaviruses was being done before the pandemic. They chose not to finish vaccine research because they didn't think it would be profitable. It wouldn't have cost billions either, just a few million. Pocket change.
Never forget this - millions of people died because the market could not see an economic case to invest a few million dollars.
"You never mention the dictator pipeline. Somehow every socialist country ends up at the helm of a dictator"
This is because every time a socialist wins a democratic election, they are jailed, exiled or murdered. Peru, Chile, Guatemala, Brazil, Boliva, I could go on but all of this happened with explicit US support.
"The western world being remarkably dictator free is a first in all of human history"
The western world also supported many of the world's dictators. Look what happened in Taiwan, Iraq, South Korea, Egypt, Russia, Burkina Faso etc. Some of the most brutal examples relied on western support or sometimes direct intervention. We can't exactly refer to the west as being 'pro-democracy' in the face of this, can we?
Let's turn your questions about fleeing countries around for a moment. If capitalism is so good, why won't the USA allow people to trade with Cuba? Why did it spray chemical weapons on the civliians of Vietnam?
You're also ignoring everybody who flees their capitalist nations. Isn't it a little bit odd that a full third of Lithuanians fled? AFTER they became capitalist? Much of Eastern Europe has had a similar exodus, usually without conflict or repression. Why isn't capitalism working?
"I would also like to hear a breakdown of North and South Korea, and why one is failing and the other isn't"
North Korea is almost completely cut off from the entire world, save for China and Russia really. Ask yourself: Could a single capitalist nation survive as long as North Korea has?
Hell, capitalist economies crash every 20 years even with the benefit of global trade and vast wealth, so I doubt it!
"Capitalism has both succeeded and failed, and as time goes on it will continue to succeed for more and more people"
I've been alive for over thirty years. When do I get to see this success? I'm halfway through my life, and despite living in one of the richest nations in human history, all I see are MORE homeless people, MORE breadlines, and MORE misery. And what do I get out of it? I keep losing democratic rights, I keep losing important protections, and everything gets more expensive!
Where's the success? Extreme poverty is on the rise, even in the USA. Don't tell me 'oh but statistically more people have $2 a day now' either - they're still somehow in poverty even when their nations are rich in resources.
Here's the final point - I know absolutely none of this will convince you. You have consciously picked a side. Life is good for you, and it doesn't matter if a foreigner like me lives or dies.
But your preferred economic doctrine cannot be sustained, the planet cannot tolerate this level of industrial activity. There will be consequences, resulting in a complete breakdown of the global supply chain, making food and water harder to get. Will you at least change your mind then? When it's too late? Or will it somehow be socialism's fault?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KittyBoom360 "The twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition"
That is a lie, there is no evidence for this.
"I can verify by simply re-watching any of the videos of the towers coming down"
Again, a lie. You cannot do that.
"This, I pretty much know for certain based on direct visual evidence"
You have no education on architecture, demolition, and the mechanics of collapsing structures. You do not have an understanding of the timeline of events following the plane crash. Your opinion, based on video footage from the time, is worthless.
"And when I start there, Bin Laden looks like a fall guy"
He literally came out and said it was him straight after the attacks. Some fall guy!
"even more so, an opportunity for war, if we're gonna speculate."
Oh for sure my dude, the USA could simply never get people to support a war without some kind of terrorist attack
It's not like the US has spent almost its entire history attacking other nations with the blessing of its citizens or anything
Nope, only way they could have gotten away with it is by destroying some skyscrapers
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dudebros6122 "Consolidation of wealth as in companies monopolizing? That can't be considered a prediction, that's been what's going on the past few thousand years of humanity"
No, that's incorrect.
" Though you do realize, that isn't capitalism, that's the government once more."
This is wrong.
"Falling rate of profit? You're going to have to source me on that one because that isn't the case last I checked."
You haven't actually checked, that was a lie.
"Repeat crisis? You mean busts and booms? That isn't a prediction either, it's been known for a long while, not only that but it's been made worse with you guessed it, government interference."
I don't just mean busts and booms, but since you brought it up:
If it had "been known", how come capitalists have been predicting they'll stop for 150 years? They've been denying what Marx said all along. Every time they come up with some new policy, a new economic doctrine, and nothing works!
And this happens even in low-regulation countries without government interference. Remember, Marx was from the 19th century. The time when the market was as free as it has ever been.
"The company simply wants to produce more to make more money"
Damn that sounds like an issue with capitalism
"Though if you want to live in the next failed socialist state which just turns into another dictatorship"
You realise how many dictatorships formed out of capitalism, right? Often with US assistance?
1
-
@Dude Bros "nope that's correct, the centralization of the state - and further more the nations wealth and taxes has been going on for a long long time, only an idiot wouldn't of seen this coming. "
You're now ignoring what I said, I was referring to wealth and you're now going on about the state.
" but most monopolies today are propped up by government - if they weren't there the collapse of them is inevitable. Like facebook for example, plenty of people (you including probably) thought since they were evil capitalist who rigged the system they'd last forever, look at them now, falling harder than anyone could've thought. So capitalism does work. "
So which is it? Are they being propped up by the government or are they failing harder than anybody could have thought? Please decide which you believe.
"was it now - says who?"
Says me. I know you didn't check. And so do you. Moving on.
" were you referring to Hayek's plan of smoothing out boom and busts through government saving and spending?"
Do you realise how many things I could be referring to? They ALL failed, is the point. Yes, even your deregulation horseshit.
"why living standards across the world went up"
I'm in one of the richest countries in human history and living standards are plummeting.
"You want to talk free markets? Lets talk about the US, Canada, literally every successful European state. Despite the fact they have government interference and other programs, they are all free market countries"
They also all stole land and resources from other countries, not sure you thought this one through.
" looking at gdp per capita is telling enough"
What? That doesn't make any kind of sense. That's not what GDP is for.
"Once again, you have provided me very little in the way of a counter argument, simply "that is not true", "no", and "false". If I ask you for a source I'm not asking you to say "but it's wrong actually", I'm asking for link to a credible place which has records on what ever I'm asking."
I provided as much evidence as you have, cry about it.
1
-
@dudebros6122 "They are an an example of a company who wasn't being propped up and took the fall"
So how did they get to be so big? If you were right, they would have fallen back when they had so much more competition.
"Take a hint, give a stat to back up your claim."
Take a hint, look it up like you pretended to.
"And no, they didn't "all fail", deregulation has sparsely been tried if at all, if not I'd love an example because once more last I checked"
Again, you haven't checked.
"holy shit the amount of idiocy radiating off you is insane, READ READ READ, I have to tell every stupid commie I argue this. Tell me what did I say in reference to Covid? Thanks to the government overstepping it's bounds and closing everything down unnecessarily (after vax), you've set the economy to shit and than have the Gaul to sit here and blame capitalism"
Standards were plummeting before covid, so unless you're going to tell me the virus can travel in time...drop this one lol
" Pure politics, leftist politics may I add. "
Leftism is when you try to stop millions of people from dying? Sorta, yeah.
"During the Victorian era they participated in colonialism"
Nope, colonialism lasted long afterwards and imperialism continues to this day.
"Suffering is something that will always be eternal as long as imperfection is present, we can try to lower it"
Yes good idea, let's try to lower it instead of subjecting people to starvation for no reason
"GDP per capita represents how much value is being produced per person"
No it just means how much money is being spent lol
"Cry about it? Nah, lie about it."
Okay, I guess you're lying then ahahaha
1
-
1
-
1
-
This is ahistorical. Material conditions matter more than an individual's personal feelings.
"How would that have solved GLOBAL anthropogenic climate change"
Simply by organising society to suit the needs of the working class.
Take cars for example: They are the cause of a lot of pollution, they cost a lot to make and a lot to maintain, and in cities the working class are forced to sit in them for hours at a time just to get to and from work.
Public transport would be far more efficient, cost less and be overall more pleasant to use. Why isn't it scaled up across society? Because it's less profitable. Take profit out of the equation and bam, public transport beats cars by every possible metric.
"Does the working class have the objectivity to seek higher education"
Yes, many of the working class strive to educate themselves as much as they possibly can, despite the middle class attempting to stop them.
"My basic thesis is that climate change results from a basic narcissistic flaw in humanity,"
Okay well the time for theses is long gone, this is now a settled matter. We know what happened now. In the 70's, petrochemical companies paid scientists to predict the effects of greenhouse gases on the planet. They subsequently suppressed the findings and spent decades trying to undermine all talk of global warming. They could have spent that time helping us prepare. They instead chose to side with climate change.
This isn't narcissism, this is capitalists doing what is best for their class. They got very rich out of this. They will only get richer as artic ice melts, opening up new supplies of oil.
This is why socialism is superior - it doesn't hinge on what is best for 1% of the population. It is based on what is best for 99% of the population.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1