Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ
Part 2 of the thing you refused to address with your queen of homicide
"- 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.
Judging by all of this. It wouldn't be libertarian socialist system at all. It would demand heavy amounts of regulations and government interference. Which is never proven to be good thing. Opposite in fact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
I don't need to. Only the collective ownership is needed to address and as I already pointed out. YOU ARE STILL VAGUE. It doesn't address which group owns the land. As I explained, there can be lot of different collective groups. Which is why it's idiotic and dishonest to use word collective ownership to define who should own something.
"When the proletariat seize the means of production and the state, there's various possibilities what to do with the government."
Fun fact... You're not proletariat. You would be killed or thrown to gulag.
" accept that private property no longer exists and let them be in their positions, unless of course they wish to resign. "
Which by definition would mean that no one is allowed to own means of productions but the government. Since only according to your definitions only public, and non-profit sectors would exists. And non-profit precisely means that you're not allowed to have personal gain at all from the work you produce.
Not only that, but you would experience large capital flight. no one would stay or invest any business in this country of yours. Why would they? After all you're about to steal every resource they own.
" There can still be right-wing, left-wing, centrists etc. in parliaments doing their usual thing."
Calls herself as libertarian socialist... Doesn't understand that government is bound to increase it's power over time...
Do you understand what word Seize and revolution means?
Seize is just fancy word for steal.
Seize, verb
1. To take hold of suddenly or forcibly
3. To take posession of by force or at will
5. To take posession of by legal authority
All of these imply force as method.
Revolution, noun
1. An overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. (this already implies that force is needed to use)
2. Sociology. A radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, especially one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
Can you name non-violent revolution? And how this would in action even happen? Can you take something from someone which they don't wish to give without forcing against their will?
Socialism cannot be implemented in any society without force unless whole society already agrees with it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+The European Nihilist
"But because I am not afraid of the truth and i have nothing to hide"
Right... Which is why you lied about austria being socialist country. Even though it's economic model is called as Rhine capitalism.
"He uses the death blow argument! "Anyone who defends the Marxist literature, or better say the intellectual reverence is a Marxist or a man who is afflicted with ideology""
So far you have done nothing but bashing capitalism and supporting socialism. When asked question what is the economic model you support. You just say "science and logic" which is not economic model nor answering the question. You purposefully hide your true colors.
"And then it comes here He jumps from The Manifesto to the Orwell "
And this is wrong why? I simply stated that 1984 is perfect example of communist society.
Point wasn't Orwell, but the novel he provided. If your IQ was higher than size of my shoe, you would know this.
"as someone who was born in socialist country (Yugoslavia) And someone who lives in Austria since 1994 and who knows the Marxist literature to a certain extent well "
To which I replied that one's country's origins doesn't mean that he knows history of ideology of X. For example, there are lot of Christians from christian majority countries that haven't even read the bible or understood it.
Reply which you ignored. Since you tried to form argument from authority.
"I would like to ridicule the "Marxism" part of my faith nothing more than a false accusations are without evidence"
Your behavior is the evidence.
Then you claim that you used German language one as example why I need to be wrong. My source was from Marxist website. The first one you actually find with google search. You're basically doing similar thing as some religious people who claim that you cannot understand meaning of text unless you read it in original language. You however did not really provide source for it. Only your word and personal translation alone. I wouldn't trust that over actual communist site providing their own source.
"What is the current, the bourgeois family? On the capital, on the private enterprise. Completely developed it exists only for the bourgeoisie; but it finds its complement in the forced familylessness of the proletarians and of public prostitution "
However even with this translation.. It's not refuting the point. It states that family continuum. Like heritage the business, heritage the capital exists only for bourgeoisie (which was defined as middle-class according to himself). Then marx proceed to state that proletarians don't have families and are forced to public prostitution. Basically marx was stating that only bourgeois have a family unit. Since only bourgeois of his time had time to be with family and capital to give their children.
It's well known that marx argued that nuclear family performs ideological functions for capitalism. Therefore nuclear family should be abolished. Since according to him family acts as unit of consumption and teaches passive acceptance of hierarchy. And is institution through which the wealthy pass down their private property to their children, thus reproducing class inequality.
"What i like how you always use the Word State But if we have read the Manifesto we should know that Communism is Statless Clasless Society"
This is where you fail and badly. Marx, Engels and lenin. All advocated socialist system where state controls everything. Because they believed that state would lose it's power once Everyone thought the same. Engels called it "withers away". Since for them state is defined by use of coercion. Once everyone thinks exactly the same, then there is no need to coerce anyone to do anything. Therefore state would become meaningless.
But all three of them believed that state should exists and be centralized in order to create that sort of society. Because it takes decades to create needed conditions for it.
All socialist here already agrees that all three of those communists believed in big state to achieve communism.
"Btw Cherry Picking is not an Argument!"
It's not cherry picking. It was right after the sentence I quoted before.
Where he was confirming his position.
As you see guys... He left out my response to his response. Because he ignored totally all of my points to it. This is exactly how liar would do.
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSOcialisT
"I've studied about it and definitions approve."
I have studied and definitions approve me.
" Socialism is about collective ownership of the means of production."
Word collective means literally any group. This includes government.
And according to this world's most leading dictionary. It's
1. A theory or system of socail organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
In fact... That definition alone dimisses your view of socialism. Since COMMUNITY as a whole. And land, distribution, capital etc...
You know what I love... When people use something as authority and then it's showed right into their ass when it comes back to bite them.
" I'm not playing this game, Tespri. Now we will stay on topic, like it or not."
You were the one who claimed I were in denial. Stay in topic, like it or not.
"Capitalism: Same thing, but with one employer, who dictates all.
Socialism: Same thing, but with multiple employers, who operate democratically."
So you admit that wage labor is not exploitation?
I love this... This is what I were getting at. So since wage labor is not exploitation. Then we have no reason to go for socialism. In fact we have no justification for it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishMassMurderer.
"Correct, in this context it means the population as a whole, and in this context it's about owning the means of production."
So now you mean whole population... You aren't even capable of being honest. Previously you were for private co-operatives. Now you're advocating literally socialism in soviet style.
"ep, tertiary workers have wages that are determined cooperatively"
Wage slavery and exploitation according to your idiotic ideology.
"so the cooperative can push their luck with it. "
As can business owner in capitalism.
"Supply and demand, free market, if the tertiary worker isn't happy with the bid, then the worker can find a better opportunity elsewhere."
Yet you stop believing in supply and demand when it comes to capitalism... How ironic. This is what I'm trying to make you get. But you are literally too stupid to get it.
"Remember, tertiary workers don't really gather/produce/manufacture anything to be sold, hence exploitation in this sense is a bit of an oddball. "
But their work effort affects the production.
"In (free market) capitalism, which leads to late capitalism, the case isn't really identical."
There is no evidence for such thing as late capitalism. That is one of the idiotic things that marx spouted.
"Many businesses are exploited by royals to struggle, making it nearly impossible to climb the income ladder,"
Objectively false. History stands as my evidence and reason and logic.
"Exploitation is to take others' labor of value for free"
Expect they don't take their labor of value. Nor do they take it for free. Case closed.
" Under capitalism, an employers primary motive is to exploit, to have profits from another's work."
By your defination, there is no exploit if it's about getting someone's labor value for free.
First of all. Worker's labor is simply it's time and skills decided to help the company. Nothing else. And for that the company PAYS to the worker. So it's not free by any definition.
"As Marx himself said, profit = theft. "
That is marx definition. That is because he was an idiot.
Also if theft is profit. Then stealing means of production is profit.
Your definition doesn't work at all.
"Profits are not entirely the same as earnings, even though profits too are a form of earning money."
By leading dictionary they are.
"That is not stealing, correct. Make someone else use it for you and give you what they produce, that's pretty much stealing."
Make someone else use it? They don't just make someone to use it. They pay someone to use it. How am I stealing from them if I pay them to use it for me? How am I stealing for them for trading my resources in return for his resources?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
"Private property abolished pretty much equals to socialism, does it not?"
Correct but you're using systems as example that you claimed to be inherently bad ideas.
You're not defending your view of socialism in here when you mention those countries. It wasn't usa which turned them into socialism ran by government.
"Why? "
Study history and psychology if you want to know why. Psychopaths are masters in manipulating. It's well established fact. Not only that but their yearn social power. They always try to run to become politician or go to any field which gives them any level of power. If they cannot get power on their own, then they create cults or simply befriend everyone in order for them to give him power over them.
Socialist environment is best breeding ground for people like these. Since it's no longer place where competent people survive and breed, but incompetent people with good social skills.
"Their income is literally based on the businesses they'd go exploiting in to"
For same reason as politicians destroy their own country for sake of small benefit for themselves. Psychopaths don't think in long term. They only live for short term goals. They are pretty much animals. Ran by their most basic instincts. After inventor made his invention, his life is useless for psychopath. Hence he will dismiss that person and take his position while taking profits to himself.
". I did give you an idea what the worker's council has to do with this."
If I remember right this was already done in soviets and it didn't end up well.
"-scenario would happen, you insist that they'd still exploit you and cause disunity to the point of failure of the company and that this would happen literally everywhere and always."
Again, because it makes it into a scam. I did explain this to you. Clearly you didn't get it.
"The moment you generalized any form of failure of a business, despite this being a free market, I started feeling if I'd be talking to a brick wall."
You admitted that socialism is flawed system in our discussion. Yet you never changed you actual position. Instead you said that you will try to find ways to make socialism work. This is not honest approach. It simply points out that no matter what is said to you, you refuse to change your mind. Instead you try to make it work or "die trying".
". The moment you implied that these businesses are somehow completely unable to expand in a free market"
Strawman. It wasn't about free market but about socialism. There is no benefit in expanding in such system. It's not worth it. There is literally no increase in profit for the people in it.
"nd that capitalism "is not about profit", I became certain I was talking to a brick wall."
No it's not, not a single definition of capitalism mentions word profit. It simply states that capitalism is economic system where means of production and distribution of goods are in private sector. And that people are allowed to own fruits of their labor.
"At least I got to teach you something new."
Literally nothing new.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1