Comments by "Aidan B" (@aidanb58) on "TIKhistory"
channel.
-
3
-
3
-
@jonnybgoode7742 ok, well to be fair, let me fill you in on a couple things. One, it's not like you've been entirely good faith this whole time yourself, hm? I mean, emoji spam and flat out denial aren't exactly examples of good argumentation. Those, in and of themselves, are disingenuous. Your examples are also kind of silly. First off, yes, saying that experts generally agree on things is a pretty reliable source. Because, you know, they might actually know what they're talking about, and have written millions of words proving so. And alongside that, you might not be aware of the person you're agreeing with here, but Tik literally does define Socialism as any system with a state. Oh, and he defines states ad any collections of people working together, and yes that includes private companies. He himself has said that yes, literally every country and really even every society currently existing would be considered Socialist. Hell, the man called hierarchy and society, as broad concepts, socialist. That's the problem, his arguments themselves are lacking in nuance to an extreme, and you're incorrectly shutting that burden onto us because we pointed that out to you. And again, yes, I'll trust an expert over a man who calls everyone he disagrees with Marxist postmodernist anti semites. The problem is, when you actually dive into the arguments made by these so called educated people declaring the Nazis to be socialists, you find more often than not that they actively attempt to redefine the term Socialist, or cherry pick the actions and inspirations of the Nazis, to get their results.those fee do not go against the set trends. And I mean yeah, if you don't want to respond then... Just say so? Seriously. I know it's fun for some to sit back and watch the whole thing crumble around them, but that's just not how arguments actually, you know, work. In fact, the only time it seems you've engaged with an argument was your two examples above, which funnily enough took only a few seconds to address. You see the problem yet?
3
-
@jonnybgoode7742 The point of a debate isn't to show your "genuine reaction," though. I mean no offense, it's very characterizing for me to be able to envision how you are supposedly laughing or grinning behind your screen... but I don't really care? You've been saying, over and over, that we're somehow arguing against a "misquote." Alright then bud, if you're so confident, then prove it. Tell us where we've gotten you wrong, and point is in the right direction. As for your next bit, well i'm not quite sure what you're trying to imply, but I did say the two separately. For example, though he refuses to admit it, by TIK's definition all of history and modern society is socialist. However, things he has literally said would include statements like corporations, hierarchy, and society are naturally socialist structures. None of that is me misrepresenting him, hell the second bit is me quoting him. I have to ask, if the reality of the arguments that you're defending are so absurd that you have to deny the arguments were even made in the first place... maybe don't defend them? I portrayed TIK as he portrayed himself, and if you can't really defend what he actually said, you might not want to try. Yes, he literally did say those things I said he literally said. And I agree, for both sides of the debate. If you feel that someone or something is being misrepresented, say so, point out where it is happening, and correct the mistake. You shouldn't just set it down and spam emojis. Similarly, when I feel you are deflecting or avoiding the topic of conversation, trust me, i'll let you know. Because i'm not going to let that slide. But if you want to cope with your inability to respond by spamming emojis, go ahead, it's no big deal to me.
3
-
3
-
@projectnemesi5950 And yet, your definition is entirely incorrect, and you are attempting to redefine history. The first socialists fought against a system where the economy was wholly controlled by the state, monarchism. Many socialists after that would use their position to decry the power the state had in crushing the workers. Your definition makes Hoppe, a famous capitalist, less socialist than Proudhon, a famous socialist. Socialism, from the first second it was formed, had everything to do with class. Saying class can be removed from socialism is like saying women can be removed from feminism. Socialism IS based on class. Marx, when he was alive, shifted that class analysis to things like the petite bourgeoisie and the middle class that was forming, but he never made up that historical lens, only reused it. Point out to me one famous socialist thinker that was foundational to the idea that said socialism was just when the economy was controlled by the state. Literally just one. Don't assert, prove. The oldest definition of socialism is literally that it's stateless, so according to you, it's the oldest (and thus the most correct) definition, and provides the ground work for those other theories. Your definition, on the other hand, provides the ground work for no socialist theories, which is readily apparent. If you have such an issue with redefining words, why do you continue to do it?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@projectnemesi5950 Communism is a classless society, mate. The idea of a socialism as a tool to get to communism was Marx's, but the ideas of both socialism and communism predate him by quite a bit. Saying I have it backwards, and then literally repeating the opposite of the truth, is ironic. Let me remind you, again, the first self-labeled socialists like Proudhon didn't even want a state. However, they agreed with statist socialists later, on the point that they wanted the workers in charge of the means of production, not the state. That is, after all, what makes them socialist. The collective is not the same as the state, the two terms are not interchangeable. The collective can be represented by the state, but only if the make-up of that state is actually representative of the views of the population, which means either a direct or representative democracy. The state itself owning the means of production with no input or fair representation from the workers is in no way socialist, again, the monarchists were already doing this. You then assert that there was little concept of economics, which is hilarious, because the idea of markets and trade stretches to the beginning of human civilization,and since then people have been trying to quantify and come up with terms for different systems. Hell, capitalism was already a system by the time self-labeled socialists began to prop up, and mercantilism had been going on for centuries. It's like you think that somehow saying more stupid things will distract from your lack of evidence. As I said last time,give me some quotes from an actual foundational socialist figure that assert that socialism is only the state control of the means of production.
3
-
@projectnemesi5950 Yes, you said it. You have yet to give me a figure who theorized as much, a quote from a prominent, foundational socialist saying as much, or really any citation at all. You've only been saying it over and over, as if that'll suddenly make it true. You'll find no contradictions in my work (unlike yours) because i'm actually telling the truth, and i'm not afraid to give you names and ideological positions to show it. Socialism is not, and never has been, the idea of the state owning the economy. Socialism, from it's birth, has been inextricably linked with class. The roots of socialism, in France (such as with Proudhon, as I keep mentioning) were the roots of a stateless socialism, which is a direct example of you contradicting your own words. I'm begging to think you actually have no idea what you're talking about, and your next sentence only confirms it. Socialism is about class. That's it. Just like feminism, if you take away that defining characteristic (women/class) it's an entirely different thing. Communism as well is not just "classless socialism." It is a post-scarcity stateless, moneyless, classless society in which the means of productions are perfectly distributed. And that's just the short definition. For a person who seems to think "any socialist scholar would agree with this fact" (which sadly isn't a fact) you seem wholly unwilling to actually cite any such figure.
I would agree,there is political bias at work, and TIK is in the center of it.You notice how he never actually rebuts any points in the comments, just complains that people didn't watch the video, and then calls them postmodernists and marxists? Or that part where he literally defined socialism as anything other than a perfect individual, so that any system that does have a state, or even an organization, is socialist? Did you know he called private companies socialist inventions, called the act of society itself socialist, but then said that socialism doesn't work and the nordic model isn't socialist, despite how that contradicts his previous points? That's mental gymnastics. Because by TIK's (and a to a lesser extent your) definition, all of human history is socialist. That'show much you have to devalue the word to even consider the nazis socialist. It's telling that you're holidng up TIK as proof of a man somehow moving past the bias, when this whole thing was born out of his own extreme bias. So yes, i'm sorry to say, but nazi ideology, fascist ideology, and traditionalist/social darwinist ideology is not socialist. And so far, your redefinition of socialist and inability to cite said socialists is only cementing that point.
3
-
@projectnemesi5950 Again, I have to remind you, your assertions do not count as facts. Three times now i've asked for any sort of citation for you, even as minor as giving me a name, or a political movement, that might disprove the objective truths i've given to you. And, oddly enough, i've seen nothing from you. I wonder why that is...? I'm sorry, but just calling these objectively true facts "fringe" over and over, is nothing but your own opinionated ad hominem attack. I did give you evidence to the contrary, the existence of a political movement, and even a specific figure within it, that were socialists and yet advocated for the direct opposite of what you claim socialism is. That's not fringe at all, that's called history. Yes, societal collective ownership is not the state, and i'm afraid it's on you currently to actually prove me wrong, and not just complain over and over that you don't agree with me. This is not my opinion, it's the modern day etymological understanding of these words, and if you have any non-biased sources that prove otherwise, that prove themselves to be mainstream and undisputed... well, hand them over. For a person who brings up "scholarly work" a lot you seem to be unwilling to actually cite any. And I think I can guess why. Because you know that any definition such as the one you're proposing is so stretched, that no rational person would use it. When your definition encompasses nearly ever facet of life and 99% of all economic systems and policies in human history... your definition just doesn't work.
3
-
@projectnemesi5950 The politics of collective society is not the state, i'm sorry to say. That's why, in many cases, the people are not represented by the current political atmosphere or the state, which is a point i've already made, that you've entirely deflected from. Your definition is in no way standard, and you have not even begun to prove otherwise. Society is not synonymous with community, as I can exist in the same society as someone, but in none of their communities, physical or ideological. The correct spelling is "You're" and i'm doing what's called "not putting up with your ideological nonsense." By the way, still waiting on that citation. For a person who supposedly wouldn't be able to converse with the "fringe" if they didn't put up with your nonsense, you seem to still be doing a lot of posting.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@oaples8790 I'm just going to assume you're acting in good faith and can actually be swayed on these issues, that makes this a bit easier.
Regarding containment, the USSR and the Us were not equals in the field, nor did the system you describe fully happen. For one, the USSR was in second place for a reason. Yes, it was far closer than some other countries, but it was still behind the US. While the US was wasting money on smaller federal projects and quality of life decisions, the USSR was literally building up basic modern infrastructure, brick by brick. The soviets were behind, and by a lot. As well as that, this wasn't a situation where US always opposes socialism, so USSR must always support it, no. The USSR, and later China, were also enemies of socialism, that is, socialism that didn't fall within their rules, or wanted to ally with them. If you were a socialist, communist, anarchist, leftist, ect who didn't want to ally with the soviets? Then you might as well be capitalists. That's another element of socialism's failure, it didn't have the chance of ideological diversity in implementation that capitalism and democracy had when being implemented.
And again, I point to the crumbling infrastructure and country that was being built up. Again, we're comparing the top-of-the-world superpower which was America to the war-torn countries of the USSR, who had just lost tens of millions in a years long war. It was their homes, their factories, which were getting burned down by germans. It's impossible to say if the quality of life would have been better had the soviets continued on, but again, when applying nuance you find that they weren't just leaving due to the oppressive government, though that was certainly the case. They were leaving because the remnants of their country were shambles, and it would take a lot of time to build them back up. Funnily enough, a recent poll shows that around 63% of russians miss the soviet union, and we can also see that the GDP has gone down since it was dissolved. I'm no fan of the soviets, but take that as you will for a possible future that never came.
The problem now is that we cannot distribute the food efficiently. The thing is, farms are owned by companies, or hopefully farmers. And they need to profit. That means that even though we make more than enough food to feed the world, actually 1.15x more than enough, we can't just give it out for free. It still must be sold. And this point, supply and demand has lost control. There is much more supply than demand, and there will always be. So what's the point in selling it? Just give it to people who need it. The problem is, that cannot happen in capitalism. No matter how much food we have, how many empty homes we have, or how low the cost of manufacturing medicine is, it'll never reach a perfect zero. And why is that a good thing? We can feed the world, why do we have to make them pay for it anymore.
And finally, no. The end goal is not the same. The end goal of socialism has never been state control, in fact. That's just a process to get to the end goal. The end goal is that it's community control. Imagine this, you live in a true socialist country. And one day, they nationalize Frank's factory. That act, in and of itself, is not socialist. It's the motivation behind the nationalization, and what they do with the property afterwards, that makes it socialist. If they keep the property, and give it to a dictator or a party or a hereditary monarch, they aren't socialist, they're just totalitarians. But if they give it back to the community, and say that you, frank, and all your other neighbors who worked there can now manage that factory democratically, that is socialism. The best part is you don't even need the government to nationalize it first, you can just skip that step in some systems and own it directly. That's socialism. Think of it like a shooting. Saying "nationalization is socialism" is like saying all shootings are the same. But what's the motivation? Was it self defense? Was it cold-blooded murder? Was it a theft, or an assassination? The further you look into you see that all shootings are not the same. And, similarly, all nationalization or state ownership is not the same. hell, the first socialists were against monarchism, against states where the state owned literally everything.
And I hope that helps, and wasn't too much to dump on you at once.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Wargulpartal Yeah, except here's the thing - that's complete nonsense. Yes, I know you're a child who cares more about "owning" your political opponents than the truth, but in no way is third way economics socialism. That's kind of the point, it's neither capitalism, nor socialism. So that of course is completely unfounded. Then you try to enforce a binary that just doesn't exist, which is to be expected, and make some amazing generalizations that tell us nothing. Brilliant. You know that when talking about 200 year old ideologies, concise isn't the word you're looking for, right? You want "detailed.""accurate." Not fast. So please, try again.
3
-
@Wargulpartal One problem, mate. The author of this long, "well researched" video is hilariously incorrect, and it shows. I have to question what you consider lucid, because any video that takes an hour and a half to even get to the actual arguments isn't a good one. In any case, his argument is not lucid, nor is it based in facts. Did you know he defines all of society as socialist? All of hierarchy itself? Any system with a state? Any organization of more than two people? Yes, he even used private companies as an example of socialism, saying even that youtube was somehow marxist. That's the person you are praising. And no, I am not exaggerating this, strawmanning him, or making a word of this up. This is all coming from him. You know, according to him, you're a socialist as well. That's how broad his definition is, and why it doesn't work. All this video proves is that the nazis were totalitarian, but the problem is, it assumes that all totalitarianism is socialism. It also defines totalitarianism as private companies and any county with a federal state. So this video doesn't prove anything.
I know you won't repeat yourself, because you don't have the ideological convictions to make the argument you don't understand, and because there is no possible way to call the nazis socialists. When you are praising the man that calls youtube marxist and the very act of hierarchy socialist, then I hate to break it to you, but you are the denialist fanatic, or at least support them.
3
-
3
-
@Wargulpartal Yes, and considering you have not yet participated in anything even close to good faith, I saw no reason to answer your odd, deflationary question. And this is exactly why.
And no, Marxists do not define Communism as State Capitalism. They define communism as it was meant to be defined, a stateless, classless, moneyless society. They define state capitalism as it is meant to be defined, a system where business and strong government are intertwined with each helping the other.
Two things about this. For one, thats still privatization mate. It isn't true, and wasn't for the majority of cases, but it would still be considered considered selling it back to the private market. For two, you don't see how this could be reversed on you? The business tycoons, CEOs and bosses of the biggest companies in the country were all also in charge of the government, which means the market had a huge say in the government. Not your best point.
Considering the fact that they both targeted the stock market in entirely different ways and for entirely different reasons, not your best comparison. Hell, the nazis were inviting over american capitalists and industrialists by the handful to help them make things, while those same people were trying to invade the soviet union to implant a little seed of capitalism there. So the trend, the "pattern" doesn't really exist.
The video is long because it takes nearly two hours to get to the point, the beginning is just him waffling about how much he loves capitalism, and how everything bad is socialism. His "scientific sources" are in some cases taken from literal fascists, in other cases taken from the streams of alt-right youtubers, and in very, very few cases are they actually taken from the ideology he is supposed to be connecting the nazis to and explaining, socialism.
I'm sorry to say I paid too much attention.
And I would not consider that statement much of a stretch at all. After all, in his own words he described socialism as any entity or process consisting of more than one individual, which is the only thing he considers "private," and thus, capitalism. This isn't a performative definition like yours is, it's one based on the very nature of what it means to be private. Now, I hate to fill you in, but keynesians are indeed capitalists. No, they are not your preferred type of capitalist, but they are capitalist. And I would doubt that statement, but I assume nothing I could say would change your mind. Most economists I have seen, especially the ones held up by the right, have a deep hatred of state run and state regulated economies. In any case, this is another example of this point-reversal thing. If what you're saying is true, maybe theres a reason most experts on economics agree on some simple things? Yes, we have taxation, and yes, we have regulation, but neither of those things is anti-capitalist by default. Adam Smith himself advocated for a graduated tax and public property to be kept by the state, which would get him booed out of any meeting of the libertarian party today. And I also hate to say this, but monopoly and molopsony are kind of the end results of a free market system of competitions. That's what you can see from today's free market companies, which yes, are capitalist and are private businesses. Corporations of any size can bribe politicians, we just have a legal framework for letting it happen. The whole point of communism is to get ride of the state, mate, that's kind of why they aren't huge fans of monopolies. The reason the state and the private market align together is literally because both find a way to benefit at the detriment of the people. I would agree, we live in a system run by big business and the government holding it up, but that isn't socialism. That's just the end result of global capitalism getting its way. But in all of this, you don't substantiate your claim. Yes, TIK considers all of what you just mentioned, and even smaller businesses, to count as their own state, and thus socialism. Not that hard to see, and it doesn't make that much sense. And i'm aware you're serious. I could tell by all the little "serious" faces you put in there.
3
-
@Wargulpartal Oh, so you put those faces because you were intensely annoyed that I kept calling you out on your absolute nonsense deflection and baseless assertions. Not a communist by the way, but it's funny how you devolve to calling everyone who dares to contradict your historical revisionism a communist. By the way, the nazis did the same thing. So you calling me a communist, and then refusing to actually engage with my arguments, says a whole hell of a lot.
Well no, me calling communism a "stateless, classless, moneyless" society has nothing to do with the moral perceptions the nazis had on their own actions, because my definition isn't something subjective, it's the literal definition. As in literally, the word communism since inception, has meant a stateless, classless, moneyless society. If you can disprove the first communist who put such a meaning onto that term, you're going to have to actually cite some facts, not just get annoyed i'm right. Hell, you didn't even pose a counter argument, you just tried to assert a false equivalency and say "no."
It's telling how instead of coming up with actual counter points, you just leap into ad hominem attacks and repeat the same arguments I just objectively disproved from your last post. You can keep lying and rewriting words all you want, that doesn't matter. Quick question - in these examples of supposed "communism" have that you alleged have been tried, how many were stateless, classless, or moneyless? In fact, just for an easier question, how many actually even referenced the system they had as communist? Because the simple fact is, if it does to fit that definition, it was not communism. That's the whole point. If a thing doesn't fit a definition, then you either find another word to describe that thing, or make a new word. By trying to assert that communism is anything but the traditional definition, you're just making communists pick a new word to describe what they actually want. Frankly, I have no idea on what basis you're even denying the definition of communism, because you've provided nothing in the way of alternate definitions, or citations. This should be fun to hear. You cannot have a state run economy with no state. The nazis did not have a state run economy, they had an economy where the state and markets were intermingled, so that the leaders of nazi industry had positions of power in the government, meaning the market also in some ways ran the government. You cannot make an argument to authority, because the video above has been disproven.
And again, you allege that you, or perhaps TIK, are doing these things. That is incorrect. For one, first hand sources and expert historians on the subject are widely available, there is no need to supplement that knowledge by constructing a biased patchwork of information taken out of context. If you want to prove a point, use the first hand sources provided. Neither you nor TIK does that, rather TIK decides to construct his understanding of things like socialism not on what socialists say, or not even from analyzing and contrasting both the anti-socialist and pro-socialist definitions, but simply by taking the most highly biased anti-socialist spiels and counting them as objective fact. According to TIK, the patterns he saw were so broad they applied to most of modern society. Hey, did you know the nazis had a state? Well according to TIK, that makes them socialist. Expert analysis. Yes, some of his sources are genuine, but the vast majority are either biased, unprofessional, or unrelated. For example, a huge part of the sourcing goes into the first 1.5 hours of the video, which have nothing to do with the history of the nazis, and is rather him trying to say that capitalism is better than socialism. Some of the sources, like I said, are highly unprofessional, like him trying to use the anecdotal evidence of a far-right youtuber's stream to declare that no socialist knows what socialism means, so he is justified in sweeping in and proposing a definition none of them actually believe in. Better yet, in his comments under videos trying to define fascism, he just straight up says he won't use sources like Umberto Eco's "Ur-Fascism," (an essay defining fascism written by a man that survived fascist italy) because they don't conform to his view of events. What is that view of events, well, he didn't like how Eco called fascism a racist ideology by default, and tried to argue that the fascist italians... weren't racist. You know, those same italians that burned jewish books, prohibited their civil rights, carried out a campaign of extermination against several slavic ethnicities directly, ect. Is that the type of sourcing and bias that you consider to be a good argument? Call me a communist all you want, if being a communist means pointing out that the genocidal ideology of the fascist italians was, in fact, racist, then count me in I suppose.
And once again, I have to remind you... that's just the process of capitalism. When you get a whole bunch of people together under a system that asks them to do their best to make as much money as humanly possible, eventually they'll figure out that you don't actually need to make the best products, you don't actually need to be the most efficient, you don't actually always have to succeed in terms of "merit." You can cheat the system. Let me ask you this - who does more government control, and monopolies, benefit? Obviously not the people. Obviously not the small business owners. No, rather it benefits the monopolies themselves, the biggest and most destructive companies. And, through their lobbying and bribing, it benefits the government that puts said policies in place. As long as there is wealth and there is power, even potential for power, the two will find eachother. Even if you removed all restrictions on the market, companies would probably just lobby to put into place new ones, new monopolistic policies, that would put them back on top. You could outlaw lobbying, but they'd still be able to bribe, or make campaign contributions. You could try getting rid of the state while keeping capitalism, but then the top companies would just take the role of the state, and work together to ensure all of them have to work less to make more. Because, sadly, the worst enemy of a capitalist (as in one who owns capital) is free, fair capitalism. The system you're describing isn't socialism, in any form. Hell, socialists hate it more than you do. If I wanted to be generous, i'd call it corporatism, crony capitalism. But every time capitalism is tried, it always seems to end up here. I would agree, that the state and market are overbearing, and that thye wok together to take away civil liberties, slowly. But it's not slow anymore, is it? I mean, look around. The police is literally shooting random people point blank with gas canisters for daring to be near an active protest, even though they are unrelated. This is the start of totalitarianism, and I hate to say it, but it doesn't have much to do at all with socialism. But hey, that's life.
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Wargulpartal Your entire response here makes literally no logical sense. For one, I literally responded to you line by line, proving that you were the one redefining words, and asked you to provide citation for your definition of them. You didn't, you just said "but you're wrong," ignored literally every point I spent time making against you, and then just decided to make up your own logic, rather than cite actual thinkers. Let me get this out of the way. Even if you think a system doesn't work, even if you think it's a pie-in-the-sky idea that can never happen, even if it's a complete fantasy - it still has a concrete definition. And you don't get to change that definition because you decided that communism means what you want it to mean arbitrarily. Take the word "utopia." Obviously, such a system is impossible, that's the whole point. But I don't go around saying "utopia has been achieved before, because what it actually requires is too hard to implement, so I just changed the meaning of the word." Even for things we think are impossible, we can define them, and usually in detail. If you think communism at it is correctly defined is impossible, just say so, don't redefine the world.
It's a typical anti-socialist fallacy to simply declare something is communist without proof, and then get angry when it's pointed out that "no, that isn't what communism means." We get it, you already decided these places were communist long before you even bothered to try to define the terms, and now want to twist the terms to match your perception. Not only is that a bad faith tactic, it doesn't even make sense. Your only point here is to say "I don't think a society without money is possible" so you just discount that part of the definition. In other words, you don't think communism is possible.
Your next point literally starts with a contradiction, "...there will be no stateless communism," and that is a contradiction because again, if it is not stateless, it is not communism. Your following logic is flawed to the extreme. You pull the same nonsense ("I don't think the definition is possible so i'll redefine it") but that doesn't even work. Furthermore, you assert that no one ever has just decided to relinquish power. And yeah, that's just not true. The entire founding of America is based on a group of people taking power in a revolution and having a chance to take much more power than they did. Hell, Washington could have been in office for life, the founding fathers could have made this a hereditary monarchy. But they took that power, and gave it up. The next point is hogwash, of course you can have an organized society without a state, that's literally the base nature of human development. It's not hard for a community to regulate itself, rather than some far off federal government trying it. And yes, I understand you don't know how to define socialism either, but at least try to stay on topic here. Anyway, there's literally no need for such a primitive society. Did you think that if the government vanished all our technology and infrastructure would vanish with them? You then assert (without proof or explanation) that a stateless society must be primitive, and a primitive society must be hierarchical. Which just... what? I mean, you actually have to prove that stuff, not just say it. In other words, you don't think communism is possible.
Let me remind you, even if you think it's a pipe dream, then just say so. Say "I don't think communism is possible." Don't say "communism is impossible, so let's just revise the meaning of the term to suit my agenda." Another example - I know what posadism is. Is it stupid, immature, and an absolutely nonsensical political ideology that could never happen? Yes. Can I still define it relatively consistently, even taking into account the fact that it just wouldn't work? Also yes. You can define fake things all the time, why do you feel the need to change this one? You can't assert that they "end up with more state," because the entire point is to have no state. If they don't have that, it isn't communism. Just say you think communism is impossible.
So in conclusion, not only are you wrong, but you didn't even make an argument for you being right. You're wrong in that you tried to redefine communism based on your own lack of enthusiasm for it/faith it could ever happen. The problem of course, is that you never actually define it. You just say "It isn't x." As I said last time, if you can find me one of the first communism philosophers who agrees with you, that communism is none of those things, give me names, quote them. Or even take a shot at it yourself, define the ideology, and at least try to back it up somewhat. The problem here is that you literally just said "you're wrong, so I must be right ;)" without proving either of those things. If a system was not stateless, classless, and moneyless, it wasn't communist to begin with. If the workers as a whole did not own the means of production, it was not socialist. If you have counters beyond saying "but I don't think that's possible," make them known already. In order to say that those systems were tried, and did happen, and yet still failed, you actually have to define said systems.Your logic is entirely nonsensical, "It has been tried because it failed, and it failed because it's impossible, but somehow it was tried anyway." I would think that if it were so true to "reasonable people," you'd be able to actually provide a definition, not just say "no" and then try to redefine a term to be the antithesis of what it's always meant. If it's so obvious, why can you not address a single point? Why do you keep deflecting? And why do you need to end your response with "i'm right and everyone knows it" instead of actually, you know, a piece of evidence to prove that assertion? Look, if you think communism is impossible, just say so. If you think it isn't a stateless, classless, moneyless society, cite someone who actually had a huge impact on the ideology, don't just say "this is what i think it means." When your logic doesn't work, you can't cite relevant figures, and you refuse to even engage with my arguments, it's obvious to any onlookers that you either can't, or you refuse to, either because you are arguing in bad faith or even you know that your assertions are impossible to actually prove. But hell, prove me wrong. Do something better than say "definition bad because I don't like it," prove what you're saying. Does every stateless society need to be primitive? Have leaders never given up power? What is the definition of communism? Ect, just actually answer the questions you make me ask, or better yet, write a response that isn't just an unsourced bundle of assertions that I then have to point out individually and say "that makes no sense." It takes 30 seconds to say something stupid, and 5 minutes to prove it wrong. And here I am actually trying to address what you write, which (no offense) seems to be a bit more than you're willing to do.
3
-
3
-
@Wargulpartal You don't think a socialist could do just that? I mean, are you really trying to imply an ideology that has no state doesn't regard the individual is important? And if you really think that, well hell, why? Also, the founding fathers, and those who inspired them, weren't your perfect anti-socialists. For one, Thomas Paine, one of the pioneers of the american revolutionary spirit, was extremely influential t socialists. Similarly, America literally started it's existence by seizing and redistributing the private property of loyalists who had fled in the war. Considering the rest of the world was practically all monarchist at the time, this made them technically the most socialist country of their own era. Also, i'd like to see proof on the assertion that somehow socialists can't give up power, as this is the second time you are saying that, without evidence.
How is it an argument against socialism? More importantly (since this is the actual argument we're having) how is it against communism? You just said "well they did it for the individual, socialists would never do that." Ignoring that a) communism can be individualistic, and b) there have been socialists that have given up power in movements or created societies/movements with no centralized hierarchical power system. So again, not really.
Yes, I wrote it. I have no assurance that you read it, however.
I mean, you literally just strawmanned my point and did exactly what I called you out for earlier, which is to say you made an unsourced assumption and then just treated it as divine truth, without once even trying to ague in it's favor. I gave my own arguments, and unlike you, I actually gave historical examples and names to prove them. You just said "no you're wrong" and acted like that was a rebuttal. And is this supposed to mean you actually are an 8 year old, or what? I've been explaining several hundred concepts to you for hours now, and yet i'm seeing literally nothing in return. No rebuttals, no citation, nothing. If you can't provide those things, and can only respond to one point while deflecting from the others, you either don't understand the subject, or are just lying.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Wargulpartal You realize the reason I didn't answer those questions was because they were blatant deflections, right? I gave a long response, giving reasoning and evidence for my claims, and in response you gave me a single sentence that was a blatant deflection from the information I already gave you. If you can't respond to my points, you don't deserve to ask bad-faith questions.
Yes, I ignored them, again, because I spent half an hour writing a massive response with the purpose of actually going into depth in debunking your false claims, and you just gave me random questions. That is the definition of bad faith. I couldn't care less about the questions themselves, you could have asked me if the sky was blue and i'd have had the same reaction, it just isn't pertinent at all. And i've long since learned to stop correcting you when you call me a socialist, because we all know insults are the only thing you have left/.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
MajorLeague You've already lost the game, kid. You even just admitted to it. Because if you were to use the correct definition, you'd be proven wrong instantly. So? Admit you're wrong, and a liar, and we can move on. I've already provided the objectively correct definition of socialism. Being forthcoming in a lie is your strong suit, after all. Why can't you acknowledge the reality of your falsehoods? Why are you so scared of the truth? Have you not realized I won't give you an inch here? If you want, go on, pretend you won. But I will keep copy pasting this response until you admit that I was right. And you'll do it eventually. I posted the definition, seven times. More if you count the definitions I gave you earlier in the conversations, which you were too much of a coward to even acknowledge. You want to keep pushing your lies, and as I am not 12, I don't accept them.
You lie, even now, as if you can get away with it. No, you cannot. Sorry kid.
You define socialism as proudhonism. In other words, you're an objective moron.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@RebelInTheF.D.G
Why yes, your argument is indeed ridiculous and ahistorical. I'm sorry that you feel that the video of a fanatic can overwrite all of recorded history, but it doesn't work like that. You absolutely can look at the modern american right and see fascism, they don't even hide it anymore, they use the same mottos and either fly the same flags or defend those that do. They're far from fringe groups, they all seem to push the same fascistic policy, a few are just more open about it. Of course these groups openly consider themselves right wing and anti-socialist, but conservatives generally attempt to deny, ignore, or erase this fact. The right can't even condemn them without trying to equate them to the left, deflect, or defend their views. Of course the nazis espoused right wing views, it was their entire ideology, and that is why we call them right wing, no matter how much the right seeks to deny its own past. So yes, your argument is ridiculous. The nazis in their own time were based off of the right, allied with it, and used its talking points to push their far right ideology. The modern right does much the same, with many openly flaunting their ties to that historical evil ideology. Conservatives do their best to deny this because they know that if they actually looked at nazi policies, they could not honestly condemn them without condemning the majority of their rhetorical strategy and party platform. You can't just lie and pretend a twix is a butterfinger because you don't want to admit you like twix.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3