Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
The collective against you was one out of many. The lazy and psychopaths were different part.
I explained why the fixed debt example is bad solution. Since it turns creating companies into a scam. Aka create company. People are in debt to you. Then leave it and they have to pay for you. Or worse, company produces almost nothing. The guy who made the company get's all the money while rest who joined late will suffer.
I did mention ponzi scheme and explained how this system of yours is literally it.
I didn't misrepesent, I said that it's literally a ponzi scheme that you were suggesting.
"A radical claim. "
Not at all. When zernobyl did explode, the people were forced to walk with radiator monitors into the places that everyone knew that they are going to die. It was them or their whole family.
It's even confirmed in times before german and soviets were in war, that soviets did chain their workers to the factories in order to prevent them from leaving their spots.
"Just by looking at footage how USSR's society flourished contradicts with that statement. "
Oh like footage of north-Korea. You're buying into propaganda footage. There is a reason why iron curtain was made by soviets. In order to hide the truth.
You can only trust footage that can be taken freely and anytime. Not ones where you follow state approved official who shows you certain spots which are allowed to be shown to visitors.
"I guess that's why the majority of Russians want the Soviet Union back, mostly old people, they're masochists."
Or because they have this thing called as nostalgia. Or because they did belong to the social class in socialist that benefited from socialism. With this I mean politicians and law enforces. Socialist societies did exploit farmers and everyone else who didn't live in a city. Why do you think that people ran away from there if it was such a paradise you claim it was?
"Crises happen and you have to respond with social policies in order to combat them."
Crises which were caused by social policies. Read it up.
" Every crisis starts from capitalists being unhappy there. "
Nope. Literally they all had been caused by government messing up stuff.
" If the people have little to none purchasing power,"
In capitalist countries they have more purchasing power than anywhere on the planet.
" What has the government done so far? Take loans, increase purchasing power one way or another (usually with social policies) and the state takes the burden."
That is no longer capitalism. that is socialism. Or more accurately keynisian economics. Also, socialist countries take loans. Just saying... In fact China has serious debt issue currently.
If you run your household poorly. You don't go and take a loan just so you could eat more candies. Instead you cut the spending from places where you don't need to spend. Reason why government does this, is because they don't view tax money as their own. Hence they spend it irresponsibly.
"Most of Russian refugees we're most likely enemies of the state or people running away from the upcoming WWII, since why would you leave a society that's skyrocketing in economy along with living conditions and higher wages? "
because economy didn't skyrocket, neither did the living conditions. It simply looked that way in paper. But in reality it was oppressive regime.
"You had no trouble in the USSR, unless you had an uncontrollable desire to exploit people or literally fought against the red army."
How delusional are you? IT has been proven that you were killed or even speaking against current regime. They had thought polices around the places and enforced their political lines in a way that even your family would rat you out if you didn't agree with government's plan of starving ukrainians to death.
1
-
1
-
TheFinnishSocialist
Part 2
"Or their whole family as in they'd be executed? Sources, please"
You have sources that in North-Korea whole family get's executed for one of them doing something? Beside the words of people who escaped.
Look... No one in their sane mind would walk into radioactive place which is known to kill people. Literally no reason to do so. Yet they were told to do it.
"You sure these were not people from gulags? Sources, please."
Even if they were people from gulags, it would still be wrong. It's still slavery.
Also sources. This is common knowledge. I didn't take you for soviet apologists. And you know very well that I cannot post links in youtube.
"There was immigration to USSR, you know that, right? "
Yeah? From people who didn't actually know how it was. Were they able to leave freely? No they weren't. There were even a wall in berlin as evidence of how soviets viewed the freedom of movement.
Also some people have immigrated to north korea.
" All in all, there's so much footage is hard to compare to something like North Korea lol."
Actually North-Korea is using soviet model. There are ex KGB agents proving this. that they did exactly the same thing as north-korea had. They only showed certain areas to the press members.
"hese were ordinary people. Teachers, store clerks, farmers, etc., there's even western documentaries with interviews of these people. But go ahead and debunk them as propaganda lol."
There were no store clerks or farmers in soviets. Farmers weren't allowed to own a farm, therefore there were no farmers. Store clerks didn't own the places either.
Also sources? That they were ordinary folks?
"there's even western documentaries"
pretty sure that documentaries made by left wingers.
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 3
" capitalists are entitled to profits or else boom, capital flight. "
No? It was that government caused inflation by printing more currency. Or creating regulations which restricted the business. Or gave subsidies that prevented industry from developing.
"They will always earn at a more accelerating rate than the others"
Matters why?
"leading them having the most of the national wealth and money."
Money circulates all the time. Having most wealth has nothing bad in itself. You being rich doesn't mean that someone else needs to be poor.
"It's still capitalism. There's literally a private sector. "
Private sector controlled by government is no longer capitalism. They are practically owned by the government at that point.
"But go ahead and tell how the Nordic countries are socialist."
We have more free market, less regulations and better property laws than USA has. USA is more socialistic than we are.
"Oh you mean the country where most of the small/medium businesses are private and where most of the GDP generated are through the private sector"
Country where you cannot even create private business without permission of government by bribing their officials.
"The doubling of life expectancy, elimination or illiteracy, immense gdp growth, wage growth, universal healthcare and education, greatest innovations in the world, revolutionizing farming and ending famines, sending first satellite and man to space. "
I don't see doubling of life expectancy when country commits genocide on hundreds of millions of people.
They were taught literacy only to learn soviet propaganda. GDP is easy to manipulate and doesn't reflect well being of the people. Or are you going to tell that during war time people are prosperous? Since GDP always is high at those times. Wage growth is meaningless, what matters what will you get with it.
Universal healthcare, also forced healthcare. Which meant you had bad treatment unless you were politician or other major player. Greatest innovations in the world? Not really. Ending famines by starting them?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 3
" I don't know if that could even be allowed, since that starts to get really close to private organization model. "
So now were back to square one. You want to create system where talented people will be abused and exploited and then thrown away. No one has any reason to start business and get more workers into it if his bottom of line can be destroyed by the very same system you just suggested.
"It's the overall income of the company which is then shared with the workers according to a collectively decided meritocratic model. A"
There is no meritocracy in your system. In fact the opposite. It discourages talented people, and favors people who have good social skills.
" And again, organized exploitation would be considered as a private organization and is hence punishable by law."
I'm pretty sure that you think that definition of private is same as exploitation.
"Even if hijacking a company would succeed, the hijackers would most likely be left with a business that is failing due to many workers leaving, because the workers can find better non-exploitative jobs elsewhere and in the end the hijackers don't gain anything. "
Why would they leave? They are forced to pay debt. Did you forget?
Also the death of said company might be slow, very slow. You see parasites don't care about lives of their hosts. many of them actually kill their hosts. Workers who don't know the better, will vote psychopath into position of power. He uses that power to give himself better payment. He keeps having high payment while company suffers. Then he uses blame on some other worker and they will collectively vote that person out.
Again... They don't know better, since they don't have mental capability of education to realize errors of this psychopath. Not only that, most people are easily manipulated.
"Even the fellow who in the beginning built the company is secured with the debt they had signed."
Which is even more hilarious, since now the psychopath can pay off his debt by having larger income than others, while others are stuck with the debt and having decline company at their hands.
This is too hilarious. You literally don't think at all.
"All this is pretty much done just for one reason in the first place: intentional sabotage."
You do realize that there is profit in intentional sabotage to the person who does the sabotage. This is even more so if he is used by the rivals of said company. Heck another company could even hire the other company's first owner, and he literally would have no reason to decline since he get's paid by people's debt anyway. :D
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFInnishSocialist
"- Voluntary sector (also called "Community sector") - Business sector (also called "Corporate sector")"
Both of those are private sector by definition. Charity and non-profit organizations are also private.
"So basically you're saying that an economy based on non-government ownership = capitalism?"
You're twisting my words in here, you're being dishonest. But I'm not really surprised.
What I'm saying is that socialism ABOLISHES PRIVATE SECTOR. This means, that there will be only public sector left. That means that you and your fellow workers of company X, cannot own company. Since your ownership has been abolished by the law. Got it now? You're literally making your system illegal.
"Did you forget things like: Anarcho-communism, Councilism, Anarcho-syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism etc.?"
Anarchism is stateless society. It's not society without organizations or governments. Meaning... Anarcho-communists would still have a government. Do you even understand what is difference between government and state? They are not same thing, and usually people who know very little about politics think that they are one and same.
"Pretty much a point of view, rather than a fact, sorry."
When all the definitions from all the books and dictionaries state different. It's a fact. You have twisted version of socialism. What you're advocating is actually capitalism without even realizing it. It's just that you aren't capable of figuring out the consequences of outlawing private sector, because you don't even understand how private sector is defined. Also marx was a lawyer so he was most likely understanding private and public sector in same way as I'm. Since knowing those things is vital in field of law.
"Private ownership is when one private entity holds ownership, not the community as a whole."
There isn't a single definition of private sector that states that private entity has to hold. Community can own privately. You are on your own here. You don't even understand basic meaning of the words. You simply hear word private and think that it means ONE PERSON. That is how uneducated you are.
"Yet by your own definition of socialism: collectively owned OR government owned."
You're repeating yourself while ignoring my previous reply to this statement. This is getting pathetic now.
This proves that you already lost the argument. You're simply not capable of admitting it.
"Yet stated by Marx himself, when representing socialism: "It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy.""
Yet in communists manifesto he said that in socialism state will abolish private property and seize all the means of production to themselves.
Should I quote it again to you?
"I'd rather use the world leading dictionary, which actually follows Marx's concepts of socialism as he described it."
I quoted the same one you did in here. And I have provided before what marx views as socialism. Exact quotes in fact.
"Own means of production. Produce. Own what you produce. Sell what you produced. The horror."
sell what you produce by stealing resources from someone else in order to produce what you want.
Making things worse.. You don't even get anything from selling it, since government will take it from you. The horror. Socialism turns people into slaves, while claiming the opposite.
"You're thinking of communism, comrade. And even there individuality exists."
Both are collectivist ideologies. Both despise concept of individual.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
part 2
"Since these people do not actually use the means of production and hence do not produce anything, their value of labor has to be determined by the collective"
They produce services that janitors do provide. Cleaner enviroment, fix places etc..
Also nothing you just said actually addresses the quote you quoted.
In fact this section of yours is brutal and cold. Basically it would exploit janitors. You would have group of bullies exploiting this poor janitor. Hypocrite... Reason why you want to steal means of production is because you envy those who are smarter and more capable than you are.
"Reread the word "employs" and "In private sector, activities are guided by the motive to earn money.". This is not the community sector. "
Just because they don't employ doesn't make them structurally different. You can employ someone and give them stocks in order to have equal say in the company. In fact that can be part of the employment agreement. Motive to earn money, simply means that it's smart business to earn money instead of doing it on loss. Poor you... Seems like you fell as sleep in high school economic classes. No wonder you praise soviets achievements. You think that company that makes loss is actually a good thing.
"There is no "your company""
Semantics, you get the point.
" they would like to join because they own and earn what they produce. "
So janitor who doesn't produce anything doesn't earn anything in said company? Nice slavery you have there.
Also who would join to your "collective company" when they don't get anything in beginning with. First of all. Where do they get resources to be used to produce stuff. You're giving for that to them for free? Not going to work.
Not to mention it takes months or years usually before they produce any profit. Lot of research fields takes years to produce anything. It takes 1-3 years to even create a video game. No one would wait that long without getting paid while doing it. Only business men are crazy enough to do so.
"It's like picking blueberries again,"
Expect most industry is not like going to someone's forest and stealing their blueberries.
"If the company runs so that sales too will be done from there immediately, which they usually do, "
Most technological and entertainment company doesn't work like that. In fact almost nothing works like that. Even to create a factory takes years to build up. No poor person in their sane mind would wait that long.
" If you don't produce or can't sell, you will not gain money."
Most products need resources outside of the company in order to produce anything. You're basically telling now that random person would produce iphone by using resources which he doesn't own. Where do you get the money to run your company if all the money goes to the person who sold the object. This subject is too complex for you to comprehend. Which is why you're socialist. Because you can't even design a good system. As was already proven by our previous conversation in another thread. The highly flawed system that you proposed that is based around ponzi scheme.
Someone who cannot design, is also incapable of seeing flaws in his/her plans. Good designer finds the flaws in the idea and judges idea again based on that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ
"- Natural resources are collectively owned."
Vague term. She haven't explained which collective owns the resources. As according to her she is not advocating government ownership, nor central planning. Therefore collective doesn't own it. Which means only collective she can mean in her system is the company itself. Which makes things even more problematic. This is why I told that she is being dishonest. Using vague terms which can mean literally anything.
"- You set up a company normally. You buy resources to do it and if you don't want to build yourself, you pay builders to do it for you."
You don't buy resources if you own them collectively. IT makes no sense.
Also you pay builders = Wage labor. That alone already nullifies everything you guys were claiming to stand for.
" You get a construction permit from a decentralized workers' council for example, who will then appoint you to a strategically good position to set up a company"
That alone will create dictatorship as I already had proven previously. It's large amount of power. Large enough to do it. That was the time she ran away and came here instead. Worker's council is pathway to dictatorship. There is no such thing as decentralized worker's council when you give them power to decide who is allowed and who is not allowed to create business. She still haven't provided a working solution to this. She simply insists that there will appear magical laws which will magically prevent corruption from ever happening. This reasoning of hers has been used by billions of people, yet laws never did such a thing.
"- This company is then collectively owned"
Clearly it isn't, if the janitor doesn't share the ownership of it, and according to her, janitor doesn't share ownership of it. IT's outside of the collective according to her.
" they will be looked after collectively or a part of the collective appointed to do so within that company. "
Aka mob rule of incompetent fools.
" If they want to deny workers from coming, they have to prove by law that they are not qualified or that there is no work."
So not only you have council determining who is qualified to work and who is not... But also chooses who is allowed to create and who is not... Yet you people wonder why I say that it will end up in dictatorship...
Also, there are many reasons not to have someone in your company. Lazy, incompetent, disruption to the people in there. IF you have majority of people wanting to get rid of someone. They can make up a lie and no authority would have no power to see is it true or not.
"Worker can sue a company for not letting him in, despite being qualified."
This is something she never advocated for. Why should they let anyone in if they have no need for extra hands? Also it's almost impossible to even prove that case is just. This is just pointless law that no one will follow.
"Do you have something to prove that you can fly an airplane? If so, law is by your side to not get discriminated when wanting to become a pilot to an unfilled position."
They can get someone else. Say that this person is not fit to the company, therefore they are looking for someone else.
"This company can work with many different ways within, because the collective who work in that company manages the company and the policies there."
Mob rule. This encourages psychopaths and other naturally talented liers and manipulators to abuse and exploit other people.
"- Organized discrimination is punishable by law."
Pointless law since it's near impossible to enforce and prove. You have no method of proving that someone is organizing discrimination. This can be done in very subtle way. In fact it's already against he law in western countries and yet it still happens.
" Primary/secondary sector workers produce mainly for themselves, but can give away a part of their value of labor to the business in a form of a company fund."
There is no benefits in doing so.
"Tertiary sector workers are not entitled to take a part of these primary/secondary sector workers' value of labor, "
Discrimination.
"unless collectively agreed differently to agree to give a part of a company's fund to a tertiary worker who wants to sell his services."
Mob rule and exploitation according to your definitions. Since selling services is exploitation in eyes of socialists.
" You can go to any company to produce, as long as there is work and you qualify for the work."
Then it's not collective ownership of the workers of said company. Then it's simply collective ownership by everyone on the country. Meaning, there is no point creating companies, since there is nothing extra to be gained from it.
"You can try to find a deal to sell your services"
Exploitation according to socialists.
"You can pretty much always find work, where you are your own boss."
Already exists in capitalism.
"You can set up a new business by yourself or with a bunch of people."
You can't. Limited amount of space, and council decides are you allowed to do so. Plus you don't want to do so since there is no salary, therefore no one wants to be part of your business before it's fully constructed and ready to start production. Hence they would simply be parasites who join to your business at that point.
Which leads to the point that not that many people would feel motivated to create business.
" You can make a contracts with new workers to owe you up to 100% of the building expenses to those who took part in the expenses."
This would mean that almost no one would have resources to pay up, if someone tries to create large business. For example, no one would be part of factory since it would cost too much to be part of it.
Also.. Exploitation.
"These contracts, once signed, cannot be collectively dismantled."
So you can trick people. Aka create ponzi scheme and leave, and people are forced to follow the contract.
" Only an authority can nullify contracts and that too by abiding the law. "
That is a lot of power for authority...
"They are not policies within a company, they are contracts."
But contracts are exploitation according to socialist.
"his is kind of like temporary wage labor, until the debt has been paid. Clear enough?"
Wage labor is exloitation.
Oh, it's clear what you guys want. And that what you want is a huge mess. I had already lectured her to the point that she admitted in discord that her system was highly flawed. And you're proposing as flawed system here as well. I'm starting to believe that people who support socialism, have never actually bothered to think things through. This is why you guys make the most idiotic suggestions. Suggestions that easily can be taken advantage of.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"So did you back there, did you not? "
I did provide multiple sources. I didn't rely on wikipedia like you did.
Also world leading dictionary is nothing more than argument from authority. Since you're appealing on it being the most popular. But while ignoring that most wikis have better definitions and are more clear over the issues.
"You're using it the definition that suits you."
Okay World leading dictionary says.
Prof-it
Noun
1. Often, profits.
a. Pecuniary gain resulting from employment of capital in any transaction. Compare gross profit, net profit.
b. The ratio of pecuniary gain to the amount of capital invested.
c. returns, proceeds, or revenue as from property or investments.
2. Monetary surplus left to producer or employer after deducting wages, rent, cost of materials, etc.
3. Advantage, benefit, gain.
None of this applies to your definition of profit. So either you accept the same soruce you have been glorifying. Or have your previous statement over voluntary section totally demolished, since now your source has no authority even for you.
" We've covered this, you know what I mean, but you insist a battle of semantics. "
It's not battle of semantics when were talking about legal applications. MARX is not owner of word profit, neither did he invent it.
"Profit in Marx's context is not the same as earnings. "
But word voluntary sector DOES NOT USE MARX IN IT'S CONTEXT. Therefore Marx own definition of it is irrelevant. You're trying to twisting the words meanings in order to justify your ridiculous bias.
"These are in the world's leading dictionary as well."
And none of them matches marx's definition. All of them states clearly that your way to organize business would not be non-profit. Since people gain capital for transaction.
I also like how you ignored the other definitions from your copy paste. This proves once again of your dishonesty.
"A debate cannot go forward if you won't listen."
That is you. You refuse to acknowledge my points and instead of trying to refute them or acknowledge. You dismiss and go ahead and throw the very same claim again which I had just refuted. You didn't address any of this. You claim that you did, but what you had said didn't refute.
As I pointed out clearly. MARX WAS TALKING ABOUT SOCIALISM in that quote I provided before. Not about marxism. That is a fact, now amount of dodging the point will change it.
You're dishonest person. That is due to your fanatical cult worship over socialism. Socialism is a new religion, which explains why they act like religions fanatics.
You even ignored when I gave you source of legal definition of non-profit which goes in details explaining what it's. Your system is not non-profit. Therefore it's private or public sector. But since you want to abolish private sector, then it falls to the public sector. but since you don't want that government controls it. Then you really no options. Since you just abolished the only sector which allows YOU TO EARN MONEY TO YOURSELF.
So you would have left "non-profit sector, where you sell things with loss" or public sector where government controls means of production instead of direct control of the workers of said means.
1