Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "PragerU"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 1
"Yet you said: "And again it's capitalist. Once you abolish private sector, then workers of said company cannot legally own said company. Since then everything is by definition controlled and owned by the government. Check out definitions of both private and public sectors.""
Twisting again. Read my comment again. workers of SAID COMPANY. Got it now? THAT PARTICULAR COMPANY, cannot own themselves that company when you abolish the private sector. IT BECOMES PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. AKA GOVERNMENT OWNS IT.
Got it now? Do I need to repeat myself 100 times more again?
Aka, system where ONLY the workers of particular company would own said company, is capitalism. Socialism seeks to abolish private ownership of means of production and seize them to the public. Aka to everyone. Which in action means to the government since they represents the everyone.
" It's your own definition."
It's definition of every dictionary and encyclopedia of the world. Your definition has no academic background what so ever. It's only held by you.
" In private ownership, you can leave other people out from that ownership. In collective ownership, it's always owned collectively and no-one can own over others."
False, in collective the collective only owns it. Which means, if there are two collectives, then other collective group doesn't own what other collective group owns.
That is private ownership. In private people are free to choose who owns and who is part of said ownership.
You already have admitted that there are co-owned companies in capitalistic countries. You do realize... That they work in private sector? They can only work because they are in private sector.
So I repeat. Collective ownership exists in both public and private sectors. It's not it's own sector. It's form of ownership. And owning means of productions is abolished in socialism. Therefore only way "collective" can own anything after private sector has been abolished, is through government.
"Private sector = economy under private control. Literally defined in the world's leading dictionary."
Private does not mean singular.
Private sector.
The part of national economy that is not under direct state control.
-Google.
The private sector is part of economy, sometimes referred to as the citizen sector, which is run by private individuals or GROUPS, USUALLY as means of enterprise for profit, and is not controlled by the state.
-Wikipedia
Business and industries that are not owned or controlled by the government.
-Cambridge
The part of economy which is not controlled or owned by the government
-Merriam webster
The part of the national economy that is not under direct state control
-Oxford
I don't see a single dictionary stating what you just wrote. All of them agrees with my definition.
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialists
"Every dictionary and ecyclopedia of the world? How about you use the world's leading dictionary and don't cherry pick the dictionaries that not only have been reputedly accused of being biased, but also lack concepts?"
You keep throwing the name "leading dictionary" without ever even naming it.
You don't name it because you fear that I will read the source and point out the other parts of the definitions they mention. Go ahead and name it. I provided multiple sources and different definitions. They all disagreed with you.
"Co-ops can exist in a capitalist society, but by being owned by a private organization, they can leave workers out of the ownership if they so want."
workers are that organization. So they can democratically kick out others if they so want. Isn't that what you want?
" In socialism, co-ops have to take qualified workers as their colleagues,"
In socialism there is no meritocracy. There is no such thing as qualified worker. There is only people who has the brownest nose.
"Organized discrimination is again punishable by law."
Impossible to prove that such thing happens. Hence no one will follow the law.
Especially if law makers and authorities are in their pocket, or they are in their pockets.
You just cannot throw word LAW and expect it to be perfect solution. Laws have never prevented anything from happening. IF they actually worked, then world would be perfect place to live.
" "The private sector employs most of the workforce in some countries. In private sector, activities are guided by the motive to earn money.""
What about this? It doesn't address anything I had said.
" I might need to remind that there is no wage labor in socialism. "
hah, so why would anyone join to your company if they don't gain wage? IT would literally be too risky to be part of it. Do you even understand how risky it's to run company while knowing that you don't get paid beforehand but rely purely on profits. Workers actually got it easy. Since they will get paid regardless what will happen.
" I might need to remind you that activities are not guided by the motive to earn money"
Then it's bound to sell products with loss and collapse.
" These concepts are literally taught in high school's first economics course."
You haven't even been in economic course in high school. Last time I did check, they don't even teach economics in our schools. Only start teaching it in college.
Also even if they did taught it. You have proven by your own actions that you don't know what it means. Simply because something is taught in schools, doesn't mean that one learns it.
"Going personal?"
Not, really. Just pointed out objective fact.
" I learned the good sides of abolishing private ownership and giving every qualifiable equal opportunities from the left."
Expect you haven't learned the bad sides of abolishing private ownership.
" Can you let the straw man go already?"
It's not a strawman when all socialist philosophers have advocated that and every socialist state in the world has done it.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 2
"Janitor's value of labor is subjective"
Janitor is a worker as well. Yet you don't say that he should have equal right as rest of the workers. Also ALL THE WORKERS VALUE OF LABOR IS SUBJECTIVE. I'm pretty sure that value of labor of CEO is actually higher than someone who simply follows simple instructions and presses one button in the screen.
"The janitor's value of labor has to be determined collectively."
Aka he will be exploited by majority. We have already seen in history how this will end up. There is a reason why not a single civilized country has a direct democracy.
" I also said this too before already..."
You did, but you just moment ago that only people who create the product with their own hands get the profits. That is already highly discriminatory set of rules.
"There is no iron ore, there is just a blast furnace "
You need resources to build up blast furnace in the first place. You're not conjuring it out of nowhere.
So now, you would have group of workers, simply waiting that blast furnace to be built in order to even start their production. None of them earns nothing. No one would have literally any reason at all to create new companies. Since it doesn't give them any benefit, in fact they actually lose from it.
"The iron ore in the ground is also collectively owned!"
Collectively owned by who? You're being vague now. Is it the company that owns. Or is it just free to pick by anyone? This is why I hate your use of word collective. It's too vague and dishonest.
"so the workers can just mine them from there and then smelt them in the blast furnace."
Okay, what if the mine is another side of the world? Just mine it? They would need to travel, and in order to travel they would need to have car. They would need gas as well. But their company doesn't own gas. They would need to have mine equipment, but their company doesn't produce them nor has any. They would need to have knowledge over mining operations and how to purify the ores. And even the purifying process takes time, since you would need to create them as well.
Then, it takes lot of time and physical strenght to mine in the first place.
Why any sane person would go and do all of that? It's highly inefficient. This speaks out over your ignorance of how complicated even mining process is. It's not that simple as you just go and pick it up.
"Nothing is given - workers gather and manufacture."
This makes most modern industries impossible to conduct. Not only that but it would destroy industries all over the world. Since it's not efficient at all for workers to travel to other side of the world just to pick couple pieces of iron. You do realize that resources are limited and they existing equally in different countries?
"What you're talking about... if you can produce something immediately, then you can sell it and earn money."
Do you have any idea how long it takes to design and developed any of the modern luxuries you have now? IT took decade to even make first computer on the planet. Even the one you're using now took a year.
Most movies takes longer than one year to be developed. Most video games as well.
You simply cannot produce something immediately, that is not realistic. It takes time to design and developed the product in the first place. You do realize that actual moment when you can sell the product might take years to get? Especially if you need to create building where to produce in the first place.
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
part 3
"If you see long-term potential of creating something without getting paid in the beginning, nothing's stopping you from doing so."
Oh yeah, I forgot that you're uneducated in field of economics. There is this thing called as opportunity cost. You waiting for years to get factory done while you could've been working somewhere else already isn't really a good idea. Especially if all the profits is going to be shared equally among every worker who produces the product in said factory. No one... Literally no one would see no reason to join in your project. They would rather join to factories that already produce. And the things is... There is limited amounts of them.
System you propose is chaotic and literally would provide no reason for anyone to create company. It would form naturally a monopoly since creating new company would be too much of effort.
"This was the case of e.g. Magnitogorsk in USSR, when they built the world's biggest blast furnace. "
And world's most inefficient furnace. There is a reason why not a single country builded that big. Because it's size serves no purpose.
"They did it anyways, because they saw the long-term potential for themselves. "
Clearly provided nothing in long term as we saw.
"They were looked after by other comrades too and gained money from others, since they too saw the potential."
They thought they saw. They were scammed. The fact that you said that others gave them money, made me realize that they were scam artists.
"They be kalinkas of the collective!"
Again you're being vague. Which collective? The government? The company? Religious group? Your family? Dead people? Cats on catnip?
"Like you can't have the services of a company designated to building. Builders can still get paid."
Builder scan still get paid? But that is wage labor. So no, they won't get paid. And again, you cannot create factory to just any building. You're going to put nuclear reactor to a house? What could ever go wrong...
" But anyways, the company doesn't need to earn itself, unless agreed differently. "
It needs to earn if it wishes to purchase needed resources to create the product in the first place. What century are you living in? In the 1700? World has far more complex factories now than what there were in times of marx. A single robot does more than most people combined in your collective workforce.
"this random person would produce iphone by using resources which he has either gathered from the nature"
What could ever go wrong... We have already seen what happens when land has no ownership. People will simply destroy it for their own self gain. Cut all the trees nearby and does not plant more etc...
Also you have any idea how much work it's to actually go and gather those resources from nature? First of all you need to find where they exists. Then you need to cultivate/mine it. It literally takes a life time to do all of this on your own.
" or most likely bought the resources from a company that is designated for gathering said resources."
Also not viable... Also how this does not create "exploitation" like in capitalism. Can't you really see the similarity? Buying from different company? Which means when you buy their service. You're doing exactly the same thing as capitalist who buys service of worker.
"Ad hominem, attacking before I can even answer and then bringing up already covered topics."
it's only ad hominem if you use it as argument why you are wrong. Insults or adjectives about person X are not ad hominems. You just shamed yourself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
+ ᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ ᛚᚢᛏᚺᛖᚱᚫᛞᚱᛁᚫᚾ
Every counter-argument I make is technically a question. In fact I can turn it into question to deliver same point. Problem is, that it's time consuming so to safe time, I answer for you guys instead.
Also there is nothing to ask. I know your position already. It's terrible as I already did prove in my previous comment. Where I addressed your sum up of the system you propose. Your safeguard against corruption is simply naively stating "we make corruption illegal". As if that has ever worked in mankind's history.
"That's because TheFinnishSocialist has already asked enough questions from you to reveal your stance."
No she didn't. She never even asked why I don't think that wage labor is exploitation. As example. She never even bothered to ask about my system or criticize it.
"You deny and won't address the fundamental problems of capitalism."
You haven't proven any fundamental problems of capitalism.
"You deny the existence of additional sectors other than private or public."
There is no other, Voluntary sector is new word and it's used to describe charity organizations for taxing purposes.
Voluntary sector is non-profit. Non-profit how the whole world understands word profit, not the one that marx uses.
Meaning, voluntary sector doesn't apply to your system at all. Since you still create profit. Word profit in economic sense is very different from what you understand.
". You deny Marx's own words regarding socialism"
And you deny how marx defined socialism. Which was central planned state controlling means of productions.
" proceed to counter-argue with Marx's words on Marxism, "
False, he described socialism with it. Not marxism. Communism is stateless society. Marx was advocating socialism as means to reach to that goal. Then he proceeded and explained how socialism is implemented, and how it will eventually turn into communism. That was in chapter 2 of communists manifesto.
"but you keep misrepresenting it by stating that it's all about bullies and exploitation"
It's not misrepesenting to point out huge flaws in her system. Flaws that favor sociopaths and manipulators.
""Expect most industry is not like going to someone's forest and stealing their blueberries""
If you didn't get that line, then you are more idiotic than I originally thought. That line was to point out that you just can't go and take resources from the land. Someone has to own it, and even in that case. IT'S FAR MORE COMPLEX THAN PICKING A BLUEBERRY.
""Business needs to earn if it wishes to purchase needed resources to create the product in the first place.""
Resources don't come out of nowhere. If your business wants to get resources from someone who has them. Then they have to provide something in return. You just cannot walk into someone's refinery and demand them to give you iron for free. They have to make their living as well. So, if your socialist business, doesn't run on profit. IT will end up collapsing. Because it cannot produce anything without having resources to produce.
""Which collective? The government? The company? Religious group? Your family? Dead people? Cats on catnip?""
Term collective simply means group. She never described which group owns those, and neither did you. I did proceed and explain why it's vague term while making fun out of her dishonesty. Neither of you had answered to that question so far. Unless I see something in next comments which I'm going to address.
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
You cannot switch around how marx defined words and how dictionary defines words. Especially when they don't match with each others. You're cherry picking.
That "world's leading dictionary".
Capital,
4. The wealth, whetever in money or property, owned or employed in business by an individual, firm, corporation, etc
5. An accumulated stock of such wealth.
6. any form of wealth employed or capable of being employed in the production of more wealth.
Usage notes
And to wealth or resources
British dictionary (still same source)
Capital
noun
2. Material wealth owned by an individual or business enterprise.
3. Wealth available for or capable of use in the production of further wealth, as by industrial investment.
Quoting adam's smith old books doesn't define what is capital today. Nor was he the one who coined the term.
Ladies and gentlemen. As you see... She refuses to show all the other definitions of the words that matches the context. This is because she is dishonest. Everyone go to dictionary site which she referred and type word capital. You will notice the truth with your own eyes.
"So you openly admit that you're only fighting over semantics now?"
That would be you. You use words in different way how most people on the planet use, in order to confuse and trick them into think that your ideas are good. Even though none of the words you use actually matches and delivers the ideas you're trying to promote.
This is actually common debate tactic from socialist, marxists and left wing overall. Trying to change meaning of words during debate into something that fits their narrative much better.
" Why don't you rather make a decent argument on the socialist system that I proposed or socialism itself?"
I already had done that. Not only it was decent, it was fatal to your system. After that you ran away. Because you couldn't handle it. I did even do that in here when your friend made sum up of the system you guys proposed. Neither of you did address my refutation of it. Instead he said he is going to ignore me.
You have been defeat on every field. In meaning of words, in being proven that your system is fatally flawed, and you have been proven to be cherry picking and conducting dishonest debate tactics.
This is what one could already call as sound defeat for you. And we both know... You won't become libertarian and capitalist. But instead you would try to find another way to make things work for socialism. Without realizing... It's the very core concept of the socialism that is flawed. that is why it always ends up the same. You cannot fix it, there is nothing to fix. The very idea is flawed. It's not the ways it were implemented. After all, that is as far as politics of envy gets you.
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishsocialist
"You're assuming again that in socialism all factories are state-owned, right? If you can think of a different possibility than co-ops, when private ownership is abolished, those can exist as well."
Again, you wouldn't advocate for abolishing private sector, if you actually just wanted to regulate the system in a way that everything has to be co-ops. So far you haven't provided as single definition from any socialist figure head who claims that socialism isn't about governmental control.
Even marx in his manifesto stated what I had said. Which you keep ignoring and quoting some off marks which isn't relevant to it.
In fact his comment of yours is evidence of how twisted and dishonest you are. Instead of addressing my point. Which is... Just create regulation and that's it. You go and talk about me assuming that socialism is about state ownership. Instead of just saying.. Well that is good idea, let's regulate it this way instead.
"If you can think of a different possibility than co-ops, when private ownership is abolished, those can exist as well."
It can't by definition. As I already had proven. Proof that you're currently ignoring.
"Yeah you're back to the whole authoritarian -argument again, even though I've specifically shown that socialism can be libertarian and that this system keeps a limited government power."
You're not fooling us. You kept defending authoritarian regimes and claimed that they only failed because of america. You keep calling a literal communist as your comrade. There is so many things which have shown your true color. You are a lier.
"even though I've specifically shown that socialism can be libertarian and that this system keeps a limited government power."
You don't even know what libertarianism is. If you think it's simply about free market then you're bigger idiot than I thought. But I'm pretty sure that you're just lying. You know what it's and use the word in attempt to convert libertarians to your positition. Even though you know fully well that they have nothing in common.
"What the hell? "
It's the exact same thing that soviets did all over the world. Their KGB agents were converting students and other prominent people to communism by twisting the meanings of the words. And the moment socialism was implemented, those people lost their lives. Because they were useful idiots, they were for something which they did not understand. They were lied to. History has proven countless amount of times... you can never trust a single word that comes out from socialists mouth. It's all lies and propaganda to get into power by any means necessary.
When one believes that his cause is just, then they are ready to do anything for it.
" I promise I'll make this society socialist" and then oopsie daisies Venezuela happens."
Isn't that exactly how it went in venezuela?
"where PEOPLE seize the means of production and even the state if necessary."
There we have it. Ladies and gentlement she believes that governmental organization made out of people should STEAL (seize is just pretty word for it) means of productions, and even give the power to the state if she sees it fit.
Notice... NOTHING IN HER SENTENCE says anything about only company's workers own that company. She said cut and dry word PEOPLE. Which means literally everyone.
CASE closed. I were right. Nothing but evangelist trying to sell religion of government.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialist
Part 1
"To gain a monopoly over the fish market, you'd literally have to work so hard that you'd own all the fish. Even more so, it's ridiculously to achieve a monopoly in a free market society, unless you have private ownership."
Actually no... It's surprisingly easy. I could actually just poison whole fish population and leave couple pieces of fish for myself and then increase the price since supply did suddenly drop. In capitalist society thing like this is not convenient at all, but in socialist society of yours this would be common practice.
"Just like in capitalism, this is regulated to keep them from killing ecosystems and whole species."
False, Most of the nature is private owned. Private owners don't see any benefit in destroying the land they themselves own. Because then they would need to buy another piece of land. It's far more profitable to cultivate the land instead and do business which can last for generations. While in your system. Since they don't own the land. They strip and destroy everything, since they know that there is another piece of land for free abuse. We have already seen how society treats public property. It has never been a good thing. Or did you live in rich neighborhood your whole life and never seen the ghettos? There you will see the prime example how much people take care of the public property...
Also again throwing name regulation isn't solution since you're not naming what sort of regulation. If you keep doing this I will just conclude that you lost the debate. Don't call yourself as libertarian if you stand for regulations.
"No. lol. If the robot gathers/produces, the gathered/produced goods are owned commonly or cooperatively, while the robot itself is owned collectively."
Slavery! ROBOT IS THE WORKER. HE IS ENTITLED TO THE PRODUCT HE PRODUCES. YOU CAPITALIST PIG!
"Are you talking about patents? I'm personally against them, because they're forcible. You can have innovation without patents, simply because of the free market and because innovations compete better."
Why would anyone bother and waste their resources to invent anything if there is nothing in form them as well? Most stuff we now have, took billions of dollars amount of resources to be innovated. Your system is backwards and would slow scientific progress of mankind. In fact it would reverse it.
AS I said before. You're system doesn't reward talent and mind. It punishes people from using them.
" did say "much like forest fires are made illegal". Sorry to crush your dreams on this one, if you wanted to dump everything in to forests and set wildfires."
But in some cases forest fire are used to cultivate the land. You do realize that there are benefits in burning forest? So now your regulation already prevented one form of industry being used. Also there are literally thousands of things how you can abuse this. Since you cannot regulate every single human action that can be used to harm environment. Not to mention you would have no one to enforce it.
"Not an argument. Point out how this more vulnerable to be abused than in capitalism, please."
How creating monopoly in socialism would be vulnerable to abuse more than in capitalism? Hmm let me think... How about the fact that it would literally LITERALLY concentrate all the power and resources in the hands of the person who is in power in said organization a. Or how it's literally impossible to break monopoly in socialism. Unlike in capitalism where competition always is the best way to break it. In socialism competition isn't profitable, therefore no one will compete They rather join to the one organization that is already successful.
2
-
+TheFinnishSocialisT
part 2
"Law. Do you need specific talents to fly an airplane? Yes you do. You need to have a proper education on proof of it, much like in many countries you need to pass high school/college to get in to a university etc., you get the idea. Also, are you a child? Are you disabled? Are you too old? etc."
So you would give politicians power to decide... WOOOOW. What could ever go wrong... It's not like they would sell positions in successful and most influential companies to the people who they like. Noooooo definitely not... OR threat to someone lose their job etc... Totally never would happen. Humans never break laws. Humans be kind and always follow laws like robots...
Also no one would study years to fly airplane in your world. Since only the ones who build can profit, therefore no one wants to be exploited by airplane builders.
"In the end, it's not your company, they're not your machines, and you don't have a say who can join and who can't. "
So why make company in that case? There is no profit and anyone can simply come in and join and take part of the profits for himself. Spending time and effort to create company in your system is like shooting yourself in a leg. No one would ever create a single new business or company. You actually lose money and time in doing so.
"You're entitled to many things, while living in a social democracy. Also, not an argument."
It's argument. You literally aren't entitled to anything. OR can you name this magical being which created this invisible rule of universe which says that human beings are entitled to everything since birth?
As far as I see when looking at nature... Things have to earn their place in the world. Those who don't, will perish due their own incompetence. IT's a privilege to live in modern western society, it's not entitlement.
"...and anyone can join in, if they qualify. Turn them back and then you're doing organized discrimination."
But you cannot prove that they are doing that. They can throw billions of different excuses and you have no scientific way to measure which excuse is true and which not. It's even worse if they are connected to the authorities. Which they will be btw...
"If there's work to be done, no worker loses earnings."
Expect they lose, since machines.. Plus limited space etc...
" Just because another comrade joins in to fill an unfilled position, you can still produce the same amount you produced before. "
You clearly don't understand cost of new worker in company. Even if it had no salary.
"Tertiary workers are different though, they require a centralized profit, from where the money is redistributed to them, aka. a company fund."
oh yeah the slavery workers.
"Unfounded claim, therefore not an argument."
Everything you have said in here is unfounded claim. like the claim that capitalist exploit workers.
Also This is once again evidence that you're incapable of defending your stupid ideas.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2