Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
56
-
34
-
33
-
30
-
17
-
14
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
+secularnevrosis
" Ok...the people being their own lords, sounds horrible. "
How is having commissar or politicians telling you what to do with your life as you being your own lord?
"How do you suppose that having an equal say in the society makes you less in control?"
First of all, you're giving up your freedom to politicians.
Second, even with direct democracy, you will be then forced according to the will of mob. Which means minorities will be discriminated. Aka you have no control on your life, instead you're forced to follow the will of the hive.
Socialism is about living as a hiveminded specia like ant. No freedom to make your own choices, just follow the will of collective like a good worker ant you are.
"Of course you can. "
literally can't. Socialism abolishes private sector, hence there will be only public sector.
"But you must share the profits with the people that are actually creating the profits."
So not only I need to pay them salary, but I also need to share profit? Also notice word you use... MUST. This means you are using force. No one is free to choose in your world.
"No. It gives people the freedom to make profits, as the se fit, out of other peoples work."
They don't profit form other people's work. They pay those people to help them. Those people actually profit from his idea, managing skills and marketing plans.
If something... It's the worker who is exploiting. Since he isn't willing to take risk to do things on his own.
" More freedom to him and less to the others. "
Literally the opposite. Others are free to do what ever they want in their life.
"And still you will get rich of other peoples work, by paying them less than their work output."
Objectively false. Or are you seriously telling... That factory owner, should not only pay their salaries, pay the equipment, pay the resources needed to do the produt, pay the marking. And worker who was hired there on their own free will. Should get 100% of all of the profit of the product he sold?
That is literally what parasites would demand. Basically demand that everything should be paid and done to them while they don't give anything back. You're parasite.
"The money must come from somewhere, doesn't it?"
Yes, it comes from the small portion that business men get from each sold product. The profit margin is actually very small. Usually around 1-3% of the product's value.
"I would help if you defined "wealth". "
Wealth is anything that has value on trade. Anything you can trade for something is wealth. Factory is wealth. Expensive painting is wealth. Car is wealth. Computer is wealth. Jeweleries are wealth. etc...
Money circulates constantly. Therefore one can be rich without you being poor.
"Yup. And then read Das Kapital to understand what he "
I did provide to you his own words from communists manifesto. Exact quote in fact.
"'The workers owns the means of production'."
They all had that. Workers as whole collective owned means of production through government. Since government represented them. They all were socialist countries exactly according to how marx defined them. This is why every socialist country ends up the same and looks like the same.
"It's good that you take the time to read Marx, but I would recommend reading the main publications, like Das Kapital, to understand the context of his other works."
how about you read, wealth of the nations or watch documentary called as Free to choose.
Oh wait... You're so deep in your religious cult that you don't even watch or read opposite views.
3
-
3
-
3
-
+secularnevrosis
"Too bad that they didn't read Das Kapital then."
By the book, I mean communists manifesto... You know the thing which makes it clear what communists want and how they want it.
" Marx and even Lenin would be turning over in their graves if the knew what Stalin ( Lenin warned about letting him have power) did. "
Both marx and lenin believed in violent revolution and giving state all the means of production.
"No. To abolish class. C'mon you know this."
Nope, they claim to abolish it. By killing, brainwashing and exiling those who aren't communists. However in reality they create new class. Which will be political class.
"The inherent problem with communism rather than evolutionary socialism is that there is first a revolution to take the power from the goverment"
Yet for some reason it's not inherent problem for capitalist. Wonder why.... Also it's not take the power from the government. It's to take over the government.
". But it really never does..hence the various failed attempts to bring socialism in with all that it requires. "
There have been socialist states which weren't taken over by bloody civil war. They have all ended up in same state as the ones which had revolution.
It's not about was violence used to achieve it, but about inherent flaw of the ideology.
"Workers controlling the means of production. "
Through government. Also not workers, but proletarians.
"The corporations and/or nobility work with the goverment to exploit the citizens."
Prove that there is exploitation. Simply stating it doesn't make it so.
" That is one defenition and probably the most relevant and correct."
nope. Term facism means bundle of sticks. It's reference to the idea that individual stick can be broken easily, but bundle of sticks is unbreakable. In other words... It's collectivist belief system. Group over individual.
"If you don't have a free press, transparency and independent journalists."
Yeah and what do you expect when means of production are owned by the government? Or government has any sort of control over them.
"Why do you think that the "free press" does such an abysmal job in the US? Could it be that people with huge amounts of money or their owners supress reporting that goes against their interests...hmmm. I would say yes."
Nope. The media has changed, which lead press to to clickbait like articles instead of following the trend. Now more than ever independent media is flourishing. So Free press is doing great job, it's just not the press giants of the past that are doing good job. Also they don't get paid to not report something. They do it willingly over ideological reasons. I actually know lot of press from USA and lot of them are antifa supporters, which is why they avoid showing them in true light when the news come.
" Funny that the same results are the goals with socialism. "
Yes how funny... That capitalism reaches the goals of socialism, while socialism is incapable of doing it. It's as if... People who were socialist... Had no idea what they were talking about. It's as if... They couldn't understand that the system they advocate to reach certain goal, would actually go to the opposite direction of said goal.
" The means of doing it are different. "
Which is what counts. For example... If I think that mean to cure cancer is to shoot bullet in to the head of the patient. While real doctor would rather operate it by cutting cancer tissue away. Goal is to get rid of cancer... But only one of the means actually work.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Paulo Cesar Ferraro "You are ignoring empirical reality in favor of ideology."
Actually you're ignoring all the evidence going against bernies ideas.
Also wall of text fallacy. you should create clear segments and leave bullshit out of your text. You're trying to appear as if you know a lot, even though the wall of text has very little actual points inside of it.
That is common fallacy used by people who don't know what they are talking about.
"The poor, either the 5% or 10% or 20% or even 30% located at the bottom of US society have significantly less per capita disposable income than their counterparts in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands or Austria."
Per capita is pointless to compare. All of those countries you listed, have more living standards than in USA.
10 000 dollars is little money when one day's meal costs 1000.
So with this point alone I did already demolish over 80% of your wall of text.
" There is no correlation between public debt, interest paid on debt and social spending. "
Oh yeah? Say that to scandinavian countries.
And again I'm living in one.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Mostly Compilations
Actually it's you who have no understanding over neither of them.
" Feudalism preceded capitalism"
again so what? Also feudalism wasn't economic system. It was social system. Capitalism is economic model.
". 'Feudalism' and 'capitalism' refers to two different systems that appeared at different times in history. "
Yes? And? Tell me something that I didn't know already.
". In the former there were landless serfs who would work the land for x number of days per year, with the land being owned by the lord of the manor"
Lord who was politician of it's time. They did not simply just own the land, but they also governed it for the king. Since it was near impossible to micromanage kingdom, the king gave lordship to several nobels (aka politicians of the time) to hold and govern parts of his kingdom.
" In Feudalism, political power was privatized by lords and counts."
No, In feudalism political power was all in hands of the political families, and no one from other classes could even hope to be part of that said system. Because it was determined by your birth are you allowed to participate or not.
In other words... All the lands were public property. It was property of the government. Feudal lords were simply lords chosen to govern them.
" In this manorial system with peasants bonded to the land and obligated to work FOR the feudal lords who owned the land, there was nothing socialist about it. "
The socialist part is that it was public ownership. Aka control/ownership of the government.
Land was not private property since they weren't allowed to sell it to the people who weren't given title of lord. Only king could choose who was allowed to have that title and generally the administration was decided on heritage.
"socialism is a third and different system from the aforementioned two."
Socialism is system that seeks to abolish private sector and turn all industries into public (aka by definition governed owned) Even marx stated this pretty clearly. That all means of production will be given to the state, since according to him state represents the people. Over time state will disappear and means of production will be on hands of the government. All of this was mentioned in communists manifesto. Do I need to give exact quotes for you?
" It is specifically based on improving capitalism"
It's not improving when it seeks to abolish it.
"But there was no capital, no wage-labor, no rent, and no market exchange or profit motive for most of this time. "
Yes, there was only slavery.
Also you seem to be obsessed over insulting me. Seems like I hit the nerve, and you're realizing that you were wrong and think yourself as an idiot and therefore mirror it on me.
2
-
2
-
+Mostly Compilations
"socialism is a third and completely different system"
Again, so what? I didn't ignore it. I pointed out that someone being second or third is not an argument that any of them has to be similar in anyway.
Also Democracy replaced feudalism, not capitalism.
". But again, capitalism came right after feudalism and is thus more similar to it than socialism ever could be. "
On what grounds it's similar just because it came after feudalism? That is a logical fallacy from your part. In fact you debunked yourself the moment you said that socialism is completely different system than capitalism which was according to you before socialism. Because there you already admitted that which one was second or third, has nothing to do are they similar or not.
There isn't a single similarity between capitalism and feudalism, unlike with socialism and feudalism.
In both socialism and feudalism political class control and own the land.
"ystems like slavery and capitalism where exploitation is rife and inherent"
It was capitalist systems that abolished slavery. And there is no exploiting in capitalism. It's based on two individuals creating contracts based on their own free will, without anyone coercing, threatening or intimidating them. That is not exploitation in any level.
However socialism is exploitation. It forces people to do do exactly what the political class tells them to do, and literally steals fruits of labor. There is no consent under socialism.
"You also need to re-read all of my previous posts because I already debunked everything you are saying. "
no you didn't. You have been going in circles instead of addressing my counter-arguments.
"When you clowns criticize 'the state', everything you say applies to capitalists."
Actually no... You see state has monopoly over force. Companies are not allowed to use force on others. Not only that, but under government. The power is in hands of the few. Under capitalism, companies have no power. They can try to buy influence through lobbying but they have actual no real power.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+secularnevrosis
"It is still funny that you seem to think that a system like the USSR, with the one party goverment, was socialistic in a the way Marx, Engels or even Lenin envisioned."
In communist manifesto Marx and engels both state that there should be only one party, and communist party is the only true party to drive the communist revolution all over the world.
USSR was implemented by the book.
"Did the workers really own the means of production?"
In paper YES, in practice? No?
"Or was it their new "tzar" and nobility"
That is socialism in nutshell. To create new social class.
" I would say that it was more like good old fascism with ornamental socialism. "
You don't even know definition of facism. And be honest, no one knows. It's too vague and they never made manifesto. Only thing in common with self proclaimed facists countries is that they believed in unity of the collective. And that is pretty much socialism and communism in nutshell. Simply put, facism is socialism and communism. The reason why they hated each others so much was because they were similar competing ideas.
" So...the soulution is to give a handful of people the right to accumulate the wealth "
Why is it bad to accumulate the wealth? You do realize that someone being wealthy is not away from you? You do realize that wealth is not simply just money? Wealth is everything you own that can be traded with someone else. This solution is far better, because it gives EVERYONE freedom to do it. And is less likely to end up in dictatorship than socialism. Also when you talk about accumulate of wealth, then you're no longer defending socialism, but defending communism. Since personal property is abolished in it. Socialist can still accumulate wealth.
"by taking them from the people "
They aren't taking it from other people. This is common misconception by those who don't understand economics and business.
"and use it to get more power to get more wealth out of the workers?"
They don't get wealth from workers.
"Give the real power to the people and they are at least fucking them self over if they want to."
In capitalism people have power. They are all free to live their lives like they wish. If someone chooses to work for wage, that is their choice. Nothing forces them.
" I really didn't think you would use such a useless tactic to further your arguments."
You're being dishonest here. You were implying the thing. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it at all ,since it would've been irrelevant to the conversation.
"The levels of corruption is high in any system that allows politics and legizlation to be bought."
Expect it isn't. China is one of the most corrupted regimes on earth. Bribery is illegal in there. Same was with soviets.
When looking at the corruption charts world wide.. You will notice that capitalist countries are least corrupted on the planet. Especially Finland which actually had bribery legal about decade ago.
It's not the money or wealth that corrupts government. It's the power they have. Less power they have, the less corruption there will be.
"It is high in every system that isn't audited and the responsible people isn't accountable for their actions."
Objectively false. People who audit are usually working for the government. You're basically auditing yourself. What could ever go wrong...
I'm libertarian. And why? Because I have read history, philosophy, psychology, economics, biology and this is the end result of the accumulated knowledge I have gained from those. Include there the fact that I actually think and ponder things. There is no institution on the planet that haven't get corrupted over time.
There is no safeguard against corruption, therefore only way to fight against corruption is to limit the power that corrupted people could use. Aka smaller government and more power to the individuals themselves. We don't need others to govern us. Government's job should be purely acting as judge when there is problem with contracts or someone attacking other one physically. And defend the people of the country from foreign invaders. This way you will have most equal and free society with least amount of corruption.
Idea of liberty causes fear in people who have slave like mentality. Are you a slave or freeman? Slave wishes to have someone to tell them what to do and protect them. Freeman does it himself, he chooses.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
+Anarchist kitten
"It actually does,"
no it doesn't. That is like you say that it's good idea to walk in highly radiated zone simply because it doesn't kill you on spot.
"authoritarian socialist societies where the state owned the MOP need at least 10 years to show improvement, and even then that's not much, it's just lowering a bit of unemployment and poverty."
It's easy to remove unemployment. It's different to employ people to jobs that actually are meaningful.
Poverty? Capitalist countries have historically taken more people out from poverty than any other system.
Okay since you're an idiot let me explain this. LITERALLY EVERY INSTITUTION in mankinds history has been corrupted over time. It's impossible to prevent it from happening.
So you have following problems with socialist system.
1. Highly centralized government. This means that it's easy to abuse it and use it for personal gain.
2. You cannot trust politicians words, therefore you cannot make good judge on who to vote and who not to.
3. Politicians aren't super genius angels. Controlling economy is like trying to control ecology of rain forest. You simply don't have enough brain capability and knowledge to decide how it should be regulated and controlled.
4. Problem of corruption (socialist countries are historically most corrupted countries on the planet).
So when combined these factors. You will have some nice show. Even if at start you happened to get good politicians by luck. There is no guarantee that their replacements will be like that. Sociopaths, psychopaths and other manipulates are excellent in gaining people's votes and creating connections. This means that over time, every decent politician will disappear and be replaced by sociopath who only cares about himself.
He creates enough political influence to his party or to himself and then he can simply make a vote which guarantees him the power of dictator. This has happened before every time anyone tried socialism.
Rojava, as a country is too young to show the true problems of socialism.
For poverty. It's easy to steal wealth. This is what venezuela did. Until they run out of wealth to steal.
It's actually pretty common, that in paper socialism looks nice at first few years. But after it, it's destructive reality will be show. You cannot hide reality forever.
"and improved almost instantly after this change (though there was some early economic problems but they subsided)"
No it didn't improve. And subsidies are proven to hurt economy in long term.
"!That's only if it's authoritarian socialism"
It's in all of them. Socialism is weak system supported by weak willed people.
"ou can't apply the same problems to a radically different system like libertarian socialism"
Libertarian socialism is contradiction. Only idiots who don't know what libertarianism is combine those two. It's like christian atheist. Makes no sense. Sure word exists, but it's simply word play.
What you advocate is direct democracy. Which is highly weak to sudden changes. Changes in market, and war time. There isn't a single direct democratic country that has ever been able to resist either of those affects fast enough to survive.
Also you still need state in order to enforce socialism.
This is why marx, engel, lenin, stalin all were standing for big oppressive government. Because they knew that socialism will never work unless they kill, brainwash, turn into slaves and exile everyone who disagrees.
They believed in "wither down" of the state. Which would only happen when everyone who disagrees is gone.
"Care to elaborate? If you're talking about authoritarian socialism then no need I already know"
No difference in the end of the day. Direct democracy is actually fastest way to achieve dictatorship.
"Did you know that cooperatives (enterprises that are collectively owned and self-managed by its workers) are more productive and effective way of organizing?"
Yet not a single world biggest companies are made out of them.
"Worker co-operatives are larger than conventional businesses and not necessarily less capital intensive "
Aka less effective.
"Worker co-operatives survive at least as long as other businesses and have more stable employment"
Depends on industry they are in. Also stable employment isn't necessarily good thing. Being a slave was pretty stable employment don't you think?
"Worker cooperatives are more productive than conventional businesses, with staff working “better and smarter” and production organised more efficiently"
That is like saying that army without general and officers is better at making war than army with them....
Also you failed to provide any evidence that they are more productive.
"Worker co-operatives retain a larger share of their profits than other business models"
If you make programming company. Profits are always larger than costs.
"Executive and non-executive pay differentials are much narrower in worker co-operatives than other firms"
So why would anyone with talent and knowledge to become executive to join your shitty company?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ChristianIce First of all Jesus sword talk is literally a metaphor. He explains it same time. His point is that people have to choose between him and their parents. Not about waging war. Read with context for fuck sake.
"but, whatever, he's seen as "the ultimate forgiving guy"."
Not really only an idiot like yourself would say that. He only forgives if you believe in him. Atheist like me will get a lot of shit regardless what I do in my life.
"The first is that this allows the ultimate cherry-picking,"
First of all when compared Islam, that is far better option than no option for cherry picking. Yes, in Islam it's impossible to cherry pick.
"yet picking any old testament passage when it's convenient...but, hey, I am still the good guy, because jesus!"
Because christianity is based in the new testament not to old one. Old one is just background. What makes them different from the Jews is the what Jesus did and said.
"The second is what you were talking about, and it's "forgiveness"
Now, looks like you can do the fuck you want, but if you repent, it's ok."
According to Christianity yes. I know that is fucked up but that is the case.
"That bitch that won't release marriage licences.
There you have "christianity"."
??? Who? Marriage licenses? What the fuck are you gibbering?
"She can impose her will on others, just because it's her faith and her jesus is good, therefore whatever she thinks is automatically good."
False, and you know it. She does bad, but she will be forgiven as long as she believes in Jesus. Being forgiven from something doesn't make behavior acceptable. Someone can forgive murderer of his parents but that doesn't mean that he think that murder is act of good.
"It's evidence that there is nothing "better" in being a christian, there's just the excuse of jesus to behave the way you want."
Rofl the opposite. Because the very fact that it's easy to cherry pick bible makes it better than Islam. That is the reason why scientific progress did start from the west after the medieval ages. In Islam the book literally goes against scholars and scientists, saying that they should be killed. While in Bible nothing like that is even implied. Of course church did what it did, but that doesn't mean that ideology itself supports it. Just like communism doesn't support killing, but yet lot of people got killed under it.
The fact that people can choose to still behave without being total dicks makes it so that we can live in current progressive and secular countries. Name even one secular country where most people are muslims. You can't find any... simply because Islam doesn't leave room for debate.
Hence they cannot be equally bad religions. Otherone at least allows reasonable people be reasonable.
1
-
+ChristianIce
"Yeah, that count as much as a muslims saying "when Allah says that, it's a metaphor". I don't care.
At any point anybody can say "my interpretation is right, yours is wrong".
It's not math, it's just myths."
Literal commandments is different from someone talking in metaphors of what is about to do.
Muslims follow the example of Muhammed, and example he showed is made into a law. There is no metaphors in literal example of killing someone for simply disagreeing with you.
"I believe in him!
It's just a statement, anybody can speak words."
And?
"Yet, muslims are killing each other, so they already show that they can cherrypick enough."
As I pointed out. They are only killing the ones BREAKING THE RULES OF ISLAM. For fuck sake...
Are you really that dense that you couldn't even remember that reply?
"The old testament is valid, they read a passage of it at any celebration, they can take it as valid whenever they want.
"
Again it's irrelevant what happened in old testament since Christianity is based on new one not to the old one. The new testament is what makes them different from Jews. Religion 101. There is a reason why Christians have very different culture than jews have.
"Hood County Clerk Katie Lang.
You can find that story anywhere."
You expect European knowing some random story from USA?
"That alone proves my point."
No it doesn't. It doesn't make them equally fuck up simply for having some fucked up stuff. You're basically saying that child murdering rapists is as bad as someone who simply kills kids.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ChristianIce
"You can, but you don't have to."
choice that Islam doesn't provide. This alone makes Christianity less barbaric religion.
"The fact that the bible has more contradictions doesn't make it a better book"
It does when it gives good people chance to be good people, instead of forcing them to do disgusting deeds.
"claim they follow the good jesus, and then use all the shit from the old testament to hate on gays, people of color, women."
None of this actually has anything to do with laws of the bible. That hate is justified in the religion itself by pointing that those things are either immoral or just bad for reason X. However gay people can still be gay, it just another sin in eyes of god but they still get to heaven as long as they praise jebus, while fucking another guy.
"If anything, the contradictory structure of the bible makes it worse, not better."
Rofl... well for person like you who doesn't care about lives of others then maybe.
"Name calling won't help your case."
Says guy who have been name calling others.
"Providing something brutal that the Quran allows and the bible doesn't, will."
I Did. I said OP provided quotes. You failed to provide quote which tells exactly the same.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+ChristianIce "I just understand the difference between doctrines and people."
And I understand that people tend to also follow doctrines if they believe that they are true.
"The fact that muslims behave worse, generally, doesn't make Islam worse than christianity."
The fact that their religion supports it without any contradiction makes it so.
"You have to be a complete idiot to miss the difference."
You have to be completely idiot for not realizing how violent tenets of a religion can make good person into suicide bomber.
"The doctrine was the same when christians were the oppressors, the doctrine was the same during the dark ages, it's the same fucking book that is now."
Actually no they weren't. Most christians weren't even capable of reading the bible and Church refused to translate books for the common people. The early christians were a lot different from christians in the dark/medieval age. This was due to the fact that Latin was actually spoken language and christians were capable of understanding the book. Only an idiot like you would totally ignore the fact.
"everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman"
Yet you failed to give one for the other quote. Here is some more:
"Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves."- Qur'an 48.29
"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."
- Qur'an 9.29
"O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." - Qur'an 9.73
That last one means that penalty for apostasy is DEATH. Now what is apostasy in christianity?
"You've lost on all the grounds, so have the last comment on this, dear pigeon on the chessboard :D"
Says guy who literally behaved like pigeon most of the time. Usually it's the person who is about to leave the discussion while claiming triumphant is the one who is acting like a pigeon ;)
Now this matches you perfectly. You have been soundly defeated but you fail to acknowledge it. Instead you do pigeon stuff and try to run away.
Edit: Also how the fuck you jump into conclusion that since old testament is also part of Islam, therefore it's all about repetition?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ChristianIce Nope, enlightenment had nothing to do with it. The people left catholic church and became protestants the moment they could actually read the book. Their views became drastically different at the time.
Before this people had to believe what corrupted priesthood told them.
It seems that you're not really familiar with Martin luther.
Protestants haven't really changed after it.
"You will find a line that teach you to kill the infidel, but you wanted to kill in the first place."
Difference is that in christianity there is line that condemns the said action. While in Islam you can't find anything that would go against it.
"Sure, they put kids there, read the Quran, and they will act accordingly.
But you can tell young german kids how bad are the jews and get the same result."
False equalization. Yes you can brainwash a person, but you can't say that Islam is like everything else. IT's religion that is highly violent one without any excuse.
You're basically stating that we should just give time to ISlam and it will become like christianity today. But you're wrong, because Islam had as much time as christianity, it's just fundamentally different than it.
There is no debate about the commands that mohammed gave.
"..and that's what muslims do, btw.
The Quran forbids to kill another muslim, it says it's the worst crime.
So?
Sunni say "Shia are not real muslims".
Job done, 1 line."
The thing is On muslims someone breaking the rules deserves to die according to them.
And this doesn't match with your talk about jesus. You're taking in this case his words out of context and interpreting them on your own. BUT I REPEAT. IN ISLAM YOU CAN'T INTERCEPT ON YOUR OWN.
Commands are cut and clear. Plus fight with sunni and shia is about who should be leader, they still follow the same rules. They only argue who should be the "pope" of Islam.
1
-
ChristianIce "You know that the vast majority of christians in Europe are catholic, right?"
The most secular countries you can find in europe, are protestants. Catholic church lost lot of it's power back then and the trend kept moving. It was one of the reasons why age of enlightenment was allowed to happen, instead of being snuffed out by inquisition.
And only reason catholic church lost it's power. Because it no longer had monopoly over "truth".
"Maybe islam will never progress, maybe it will, "
This is what I meant. There isn't no such thing as religion progressing. Religions are static. When they progress they become new religion.
Early christians are good example of how christianity was suppose to be. And that was when people could still read and understand the words in scriptures.
"On the comparison on how strict the Quran is and how the bible is open to interpretation, I agree that if you take the Quran alone there's not much space for interpretation, but I remind you it was you, some comments ago, saying that the bible is valid for muslims too.
So, you answered yourself, there."
Old testament, not new testament. Jesus for muslims was totally different, and they comprehend him totally different. They say that jesus christians believe is a lie.
So no, they don't take christian bible seriously on any level.
You don't find a single muslim leader condemning words that mohammed himself have told. In fact mohammed is considered last prophet and only one who's words and examples should be followed.
"and I also know for a fact that muslims can be secular."
Only muslim who doesn't care about his religion, and has most likely born in west. Do you know what word ISlam and Muslim means? By definition one who is in Islam, can't be secular.
"chances are they can find a way to not kill the infidels and stay muslims :)"
You already forgot how they supported ISIS in syria? Or how they did commit genocide not long a go?
1
-
ChristianIce "Maybe muslims will never progress, maybe they will."
Again it implies that it can progress, which religions don't. In case of christianity it was simply people actually able to read the scripture instead of blind trust in a priest.
"You don't find a single christian leader condemning words that Yahweh have told, and Jesus is Yahweh according to christians."
Not all christians think him as yahweh, and again they don't condemn, they don't need. The purpose of Jesus was to make jews change their way. You understand what old testament means? Then guess what new testament is. It's basically new covenant between god and men.
"Yeah, that goes for all abrahamic religions."
No it doesn't, as I already said, christian who cares about his religion is pacifists.
"Turkish metalheads present at my concert (that are the muslims I was talking about) didn't and don't support ISIS."
What makes you think that metal music is against Islam?
"Looks like you think that christians had some kind of inside revolution, while I am telling you that the age of enlightement are the main reason."
For fuck sake they didn't have "revolution". They simply finally could read the book again and act like they were originally acting.
In otherwords they actually learned about their religion. While you live under delusion that most christians could read fucking latin few centuries ago. And understood their religion perfectly.
"Probably bot the protestant reform and the enlightement had a role, yet one called for a clean church, the other for a clean man without religious dogmas."
Clean man without religion was only possible, because christianity wasn't viewed in same way as it was centuries ago. That is thanks to the catholic church losing their monopoly on what scriptures says. They could no longer pull shit up.
You have shown that you have very little understanding over history, especially history of europe.
1
-
ChristianIce "No, it doesn't.
It implies that people can ignore the idiocies of their books, like christians do."
Again serious christians don't ignore it. And the ones who don't ignore it ARE PACIFISTS.
"You know that the teaching of christ are sacred to muslims too, right?"
They have different view of jesus, how thick are you? I said this in comment before.
"Then again, if you ignore the role of the enlightment in the creation of a secular europe, please, don't tell others that they have a little understanding over history.
"
Then again you ignore the reality of world where muslims have been accessed to enlightenment as we do. It wasn't enlightenment that changed, but the religion giving less fuck over what people do.
In order for enlightenment to even take place, you needed less strict religion.
Are you really that silly that you think that muslims haven't heard of ideas of enlightenment? They fucking spitting on those values.
"don't tell others that they have a little understanding over history."
Says guy who has proven to not know shit about european history.
"Sure the protestant reformation was a necessary step, but that's not a reason to say that the same thing couldn't happen also for muslims."
It can't happen to muslims BECAUSE QURAN ISN'T MISREPSESENTED BY A FUCKING CHURCH THAT IS ONLY ONE WHO HAS ACCESS TO IT'S TEXTS.
Got it now? I repeat ISLAM IS NOT MISREPRESENTED, BY AUTHORITARIAN CHURCH WHO REFUSES TO LET ORIGINALLY PEOPLE TO READ IT'S BOOK.
This is why "reformation" was possible. Because it really wasn't a fucking reformation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
ChristianIce
How does quoting it prove it's existance better than fucking naming it?
Okay fucking idiot. I'll quote it for you since you're too fucking stupid to use google.
"In large part, the movement to circumscribe the bounds of free expression has its roots in three instruments of international law—the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 10 of the ECHR, for example, grants the freedom of expression to all, but the exercise of this right is conditioned on conformity with the restrictions necessary, inter alia, "for the protection of the reputation and rights of others." The CERD and ICCPR, which also purport to recognize the freedom of expression, go a step further. Article 4(a) of the CERD obligates signatories to make "all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred" a punishable offense, while Article 20 of the ICCPR requires outlawing "any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.""
source legal-project.
And since you live in a cave which explains why you're SJW. Google up what EU just did in this week. Enforcing companies to follow hate speech laws in order to prevent people from telling their opinions.
EU is orwellian nightmare.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paulo Cesar Ferraro
"There is no way to define what is intimidating or not. "
There is read the freaking dictionary.
"For example, on the Internet of course there is no risk of physical injury"
Actually there is if the person can track you down. Not to mention mental damage can be worse than physical injury. We have multiple case of people killing themselves simply from being bullied online.
"No, clearly you're an idiot. What the fuck? "
So I'm idiot when you can't think? Wow that was new, oh wait it isn't. Usually the most retarded people are like you.
"You can not understand that beat someone is not allowed? "
Could you provide quote where I said that beating up someone is allowed?
"You can not swing your fist in someone's face. You can not force someone to shut up."
Says that to a criminal. In fact find a real life gangster and call his mom as a whore.
Go for it!
The fact that you don't do it is because you're intimidated by him. Because you scare that the might punch you. See my point now or are you seriously that retarded that you don't?
"You can, however, exercise free speech and tell someone else to shut up. "
It's not exercise freedom of speech when you are trying to deny someone's freedom of speech. Tell me, when a big muscular clearly a criminal yells you to shut up. Will you keep talking?
"There is no loophole, the line is crystal clear."
You must be sociopath. They usually see laws as a something that no one would break.
"What? You have not done any sense. "
Yeah I'm sorry, I tend to forgot that I'm dealing with mentally retarded person.
"intent may be that you shut up and that's good. "
any person who is for freedom of speech wouldn't try to shut anyone up for speaking their opinion.
"The point is that you are not required to shut up and the government protects your right to express an opinion, although many people want you to shut the fuck up."
Not the first time in the history of mankind when many people lynch someone for speaking their mind even though law is against lynching. The fear that mob will come to you if you don't shut up is real. Go ahead and call muhammed faggot to angry group of muslims when they are protesting something, and see my point. I bet you don't have balls to do that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
michael lolo Denmark also has high prices for their products. Which is based on high wage and high taxation. Again only poor income families suffer from this.
" Bernie is also looking at Denmark."
He has been glorifying communistic revolutions and spended his honey moon in soviet russia. Please stop spewing bullshit.
"If businesses make more because people earn more,"
And only way they can make people earn more is by increasing prices. Again poor income families will suffer.
"and if the raises increase slowly enough, those ill effects just won't happen."
And how you expect this miraculous increase happening? Where is this free money coming from to the system?
"Wealth gap isn't about increasing wealth. Wealth gap is about increasing wealth for the wealthy and lowering or stagnating it for everyone else;"
It can be about lowering but not necessarily.
What is more important beside the gap, is how well the normal person can get along with his wealth. Not how much more someone has. You're basically saying that being financially successful is evil.
"you keep comparing this with what happens in Russia and Cuba "
I don't remember saying anything about Cuba, however I did mention greek. And few more countries will be added there soon. Including denmark. You're not living in scandinavian countries like I'm. I see it from first hand what is going on. Were all financially tight currently, and some of us have started collapsing already. Our systems can't sustain this.
"Why do you think nations like Denmark has better wages, more paid vacations, less work hours, and have the happiest of peoples? It's due to their hybrid system. Giving the people more leverage through education, vocational programs, and more bargaining power with their employers. You don't do this by letting people flounder at the bottom hoping they will improve magically.
"
You keep ignoring problem of corruption. You live in naive fantasy land where corruption never get's hold in government.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Arca Jeth "Do you know what "spending power" means? "
Yes I do, but do you know what raising prices means?
Bernie is supporting both increase minimum wage and increasing taxations on companies.
Both will increase prises of the products. Hence nothing will really change, expect the worse. Now the your companies have harder time competing in international markets and you will have even more unemployed people. Which itself means more stress for government because it's the workers and companies who they tax, not unemployed.
Hence it needs to take more loan to sustain the current policies that bernie suggests.
In other words this will only lead america getting more debt.
Now however if you would suggest decreasing taxation for companies and corporations, while suggesting mininum wage. Then the prices would stay about the same, now this would benefit the lower economical classes more than increasing both.
But I don't expect bernie supporters being very farsighted people. That is they vote for him in the first place. Because socialistic policies only seem to work in short term, but have serious drawbacks in longer term.
"Our middle class is shrinking and our poor are staying afloat by using measly assistance programs. "
You know when your middle-class was on it's biggest? IT was when your country was still more capitalistic and free. After it started to be more socialistic the middle-class has started to disappear.
"Most republicans agree that the wage gap is out of control, they just disagree on how to right the ship. "
Argument from popularity is known fallacy, if you're adult man or woman and use that fallacy, then you're not very smart person. I could accept it from a kid, but from an adult... No chance.
" A lot of things are debatable, this really fucking isn't..."
Says guy who is stupid enough to use known logical fallacy as his argument in a debate.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mephistahpheles "First, it needs to be false. Second, it needs to be damaging. What I said was neither."
It was false, I think I know better than you am I racists or sexists.
Second, in modern western society getting called as sexists or racists means getting fired. Hence it's damaging.
"Nor will I. Do your own research."
So you lost this debate. What if I said same to you? You see you think that logical fallacies used by you has more value than used by anyone. That is why you're SJW. You own double standards.
" As noted, the study I referenced studied pay rates on a job by job basis. This favoritism is accounted for."
No it didn't. It ignored rest of the flaws I mentioned. Your study didn't show anything which you said. It didn't take into account work hours either.
It's prime example of bad science.
"At no point did I suggest, nor imply this."
Expect that is exactly what you're suggesting if you believe in wage gap. You want that women get paid more than men.
"You seemed to think that because it's the law, then no problem exists. "
I never claimed such thing, I also pointed out that she is entitled to sue her company if she noticed discrimination. You're basically suggesting that women should be paid more and keep this illegal same time.
" which I clarified for you by way of the murder analogy. Get it now?
"
I addressed your retarded analogy which you still haven't said anything to it.
"Sure. So, why can't you?"
I did. It lacks to take account everything that plays part on wage.
". Do tell, what is the reason?"
I already did. Gender wage gap is based on bad science that doesn't take account all the factors.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Julia Nadeau "And Capitalists don't practice nepotism"
Oh it sure does, however in capitalism at least peasant can start his own business. While in socialism they literally can't.
And of course if someone does nepotists act in capitalism. Then their companies will be defeated by ones who hire actually talented people.
In other words socialism limits the possibilities for the poor and powerless.
" or engage in practices which inhibit the rise of competitors to challenge them"
This is only possible if you combine capitalism with socialism.
"And contrary to your assertions, worker controlled companies CAN be enormously profitable. Take for example, the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, which is one of the most profitable companies in Europe."
Again if it would be top notch then there would be more than one success story. And again what is the problem in capitalism if you can do this? Of course you can't comprehend this fact. Since you want to force people to lose their companies.
"Also, if a hierarchal corporate structure worked so well, then they wouldn't actively undermine the worker's abiltiy to form unions and engage in collective bargaining"
How does workers ability to form unions correlate with hierarchical structure? Also you're talking about corporate not company.
" the result being that wages often end up cut, jobs outsourced and benefits eliminated because workers are stolen for the sake of short term profits instead of the long-term health of their enterprise."
Ah the amount of stupidity in this part. You love to make huge wall of text with very little insight in it.
First of all, you don't simply cut wages, wages need to be high enough for people to want to work with you or stay working with you. you see competition for talented workers is a thing. There is a reason why Ford did increase wage of his workers. In fact it was more profitable for him to do so.
Second, jobs are outsources because it's no longer good idea to have those jobs in the country where company X exists.
You see international markets are a thing. Companies need to compete among themselves. Beside it's their company what gives you the right to decide how they should ruin their business? Don't like it? Create your own.
"And so, we have CEO's who work against their long term benefit as well! "
Only if they are retards or psychopaths. There are ceo's who actually have long term plans as well.
But hey freedom is something that socialists never liked anyway.
"biproduct of that hierarchal structure because it pits bosses against workers, instead of fostering a spirit of cooperation because workers have direct control over their Fate within the enterprise."
On what grounds? There are plenty of companies where workers and bosses aren't pitted against each others. In fact the goal of socialists is to create this sort of pit fiting.
After all, they are the ones who created this whole "class" warfare.
"instead of fostering a spirit of cooperation because workers have direct control over their Fate within the enterprise. "
Every educated business men knows that the spirit of capitalism is cooperation. You don't become rich without help of others. You cannot do all the jobs by yourself.
" In the military, an army marches on its belly and when that belly is empty, the General in command in under threat of mutiny, which may cost him his life. "
And? What the fuck this has to do with the fact that no army functions well as democracy.
" However, in a Corporation, if a workforce mutinies, the CEO is not faced with the loss of his/her life, but also can easily replace his/her workforce due to the naturally unending pool of desperate labor, as engineered by the political machinations of corporate-bought poltiicians."
Expect in COMPANIES stop fuckign using word corporations since you clearly don't know what it's. In companies and corporations (since you're too fucking stupid to realize what they are) mutinies are called as STRIKES or people outright leaving the company or doing bad job.
This itself causes huge financial risk for the employer.
Also corporate bought politicans can only exists in system where government is mixing socialism to democracy.
No point buying politician if it has no power over your company.
" Sure, there are no legal barriers which prevent any citizen from forming a corporation, but there are financial barriers, "
Go fuck yourself. You think that thousand workers have hard time raising money or combining their own personal wealth to create company together, but for some magical reason poor lone guy can do all of that and become company owner?
So here we are... Arguing with socialists who still believes that socialism works even though soviets, cuba, china and vietnam were perfect examples of it never works.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** Your point of article is irrelevant since I were talking about legal arm. Which he did infact have. Having a stolen weapon makes this action from SWAT even more approtive because he might also be weapon dealer.
Or weapon used to commit murders since harder to track.
"Chemical tables(?) burning leaves ash which can be analysed. "
What is there to analysed? Really you do know what ash is? How do you come to conclusion that ash is indeed from pot instead of something else? The tech you see in movies doesn't exists in real life.
"All I said was, bursting unannounced through the door of a known armed man, who may be paranoid about being robbed, was NOT the way to bring about a safe arrest."
If he is ready to kill a robbed what makes you think he isn't ready to kill a police which would make him to be in prison for multiple years? Also how do you even mix someone with SWAT gear to a normal robber? That is just nonsensical, especially since they are trained to tell person to surrender and get down to the floor instead of shooting them on sight. Robber would've shot him on the spot.
"The police put themselves at risk and one died for 5 pounds of grass, and a man got away with murder just because the police wanted to be macho men, like on TV,"
So you're having idea that SWAT does this just for fun? First of all SWAT is group of police which is suppose to take care of potentially dangerous criminals, not normal police officers. Send normal police officer there and he would've died with much higher chance.
Question here isn't did he get out of murder or not, but is it fair that police do it like this. In any other case that guy would've gotten away with that little amount of grass if he just did wash it away.
So you're not really giving any solutions. You're basically saying, they give small time criminal enough time to get rid of evidence since according to you it wasn't much he had.
You're not giving any tips how to caught a criminal like that in any better means with more efficiency.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paulo Cesar Ferraro "Um, I made about six points in the text. And you could not answer any of them."
No, you made one point the argument was the same in every one of them. You think that personal salary per capita tells about how well the country does, while you purposefully ignore how much does it cost to live in those countries.
"I do not think that you know what is a fallacy."
As someone who has debated whole life and been debate teams, I think I know better than you. What you committed here was type of Gish Gallop, google it up if you didn't know about it.
It's fallacious debating tactics, where opponent tries to provide as many points as possible, while trying to make it huge labor for the otherone to address all the issues or even read the text. In speaken debate it's about spamming thousands of claims and then claiming that you won because there was one claim which opponent didn't address in time or forgot.
While in written debates you make ridiculously long wall of text which is full of irrelevant stuff to the point itself which could've been stated in 1-3 sentences.
"It is actually disposable income per capita adjusted for inflation and purchasing power parity"
No again, you don't take into account how much stuff costs in those places due taxes.
"My points remain. Try again.
"
No it doesn't you still think that earnings per capita tells about how well country does.
"Scandinavian countries have a significantly lower public debt than the US, Singapore, Japan or most of the others rich countries. "
Scandinavian countries also have significantly LOWER POPULATION than those countries. Did you take that into account? This means that the amount of debt they have to get in order to pay welfare state is lower. However population also correlates with wealth of the country. Which means that since we have small population, we will also have hard time paying back LARGE DEBTS.
You're dishonest person, but what do I expect from a socialist. You guys clearly did learn nothing from soviets.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Paulo Cesar Ferraro "And again, the transformation to the measure of PPP solves it."
Clearly doesn't.
Oh yeah and in case youi didn't know. Minimum wage in Finland is 5,95e per hour And minimum wage in current USA is 7,25 dollars per hours
That would be 5,65 dollars in usa at current rate. Oh talk about that beautiful bernie policies... So not only poor people EARN LESS from their jobs in Finland, they also HAVE TO PAY MORE FOR GOODS.
"Depends on how much you collect and spend. There are countries with low social spending and high public debt and vice versa."
Name one that is capitalistic and haven't been in war in recent times.
"That's right, you moron. "
Yeah keep on ignoring that no self respecting economists takes it seriously you fucking idiot.
"India has a bigger GDP than Switzerland, not because India is richer, but simply because there are more people in the country working, consuming and etc."
Which is why you shouldn't be retarded and think GDP as success of the country.
"You can find anyone (especially economists) saying any bullshit. "
I did name economist who disagrees. Oh and I love how opinions economists matter to bernie supporters when it's aligning with their agenda, but not when they tell that bernie would make USA's economy fall.
"but experts say correctly that you should include other measures when analyzing differences between quality of life of countries."
You're contradicting yourself. Or are you seriously saying that people in india live better life than in switzerland?
"My God. Stop this nonsense about you being in Finland. It's fucking irrelevant. "
How is it irrelevant to see first hand experience that it isn't working as you think?
"Someone in Finland stating that this country has a higher debt than the US is also wrong. "
I never said that Finland has higher debt than in USA. I said that the debt that FINLAND HAS IS BIG ENOUGH TO CRIPPLE IT LIKE IT ALREADY HAS.
"You are now changing the point! "
No I'm not. War consumes lot of resources from the country. Most debt that many countries get is during war time, due loaning for their war funds.
That IS A FACT.
"The point was that Finland has a lower public debt than the US and now you apparently realized this, but is hesitant to admit"
No you fucking moron. I LITERALLY NEVER SAID THAT FINLAND HAS HIGHER DEBT.
You have done strawman argument, but as I said as beginning. You're dishonest scum, so what did I expect. Text without any logical fallacies? HaH bernie supporters can't provide anything else than fallacies.
"Sweden and Norway have the current level of social spending for decades. Denmark increased its social spending recently, and by recently I mean the last decade, but has a ridiculously low public debt."
again you fucking idiot, in fact let's do fact checking DENMARK.
Sweden's debt is 213 535 722 578
Their population 9751329
Difference with USA is 33,19 getting number around it will be 33.
So 33x213 535 722 578
7 046 678 845 074
19 183 165 792 326
See? The amount of the debt is almost the same as with Finland. Half of the USA's.
All of this debt is purely gained because of they are overspending on social services, literally nothing else.
And you wish that USA would end up spending more in social services? Any fucking idea how much more you would need to take debt to sustain the same level as scandinavian countries?
Taxing rich more? Well it might work for the first year. But after that when they leave the fucking country, who are you going to tax? Where are you going to get that money you need to pay your ridiculous programs?
Oh yeah and norway and sweden both used to have lot of free trade and were highly capitalistic until recently.
"What? What do you mean you imbecile? It depends on your definition of welfare state, but commonly it is considered that the US has been a welfare state since the 70 at least. "
How does that make me imbecile? Are you retarded or something? Oh wait why do I keep asking this from bernie voters...
Dude, the welfare state that you are having wetdreams. THAT Didn't always exists in scandinavian countries.
"And Germany then forget it."
German is center of the EU, it literally gains most from trade agreements in here.
"You also have not shown why we should all be afraid of public debt considering that the US has much more debt than Finland and the country is well in terms of economic growth at least."
And you have shown to be absolutely fucking retarded when not understanding how these small countries ended up having debt that high, and how much bigger debt in USA could become if they implement these policies.
"Why? According to whom? My God. Dumbass. "
Are you fucking serious? You don't think that amount of debt isn't ridiculously high even for USA? Even with half of it's debt gone .USA WOULD STILL BE FUCKED UP WITH THAT DEBT.
"The problem of Finland is not debt, but the economic crisis that makes the government be under pressure to cut spending as it struggles to balance the budget because the revenue keeps falling. It is unfortunately a spiral of shit.
"
Bullshit, debt was problem before the crisis. And literally every politician, citizen and economists were aware of that. Economic crisis simply made it worse since no one wanted to cut from social spendings.
You think it's the hard global economic times causing this? IF that would be the case, finnish government including every fucking citizen wouldn't be now considering where to cut spending.
"The decrease in activity in the traditional Finnish industrial sectors such as the paper industry, electronics and heavy industry for reasons such as lower demand by the global economy, or simply better competition. "
Oh poor you... Too retarded to realize why those industries are suffering... It's not like it's the high payment of the workers demanded in those fields, it's not like the huge taxes made on those companies and the products they produce...
Literally no one in our country wonder why we can't sell our stuff to international markets. BECAUSE EVERYTHING WE DO IS TOO FUCKING EXPENSIVE DUE GOVERNMENT MESSING THINGS UP.
And this mess up will continue as long as we don't fucking cut from spending or lower the taxes so that we can finally compete in international markets.
In fact both of them should be done.
Fucking idiot thinks that companies can compete on international markets when government is literally strangling them to death....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Bradley J. Timm I live in country which is democratic socialist. The fact that you thought that you need to tell me how things work in here is just fucking hilarious. You think these countries are paradises? Holy shit... We have issues, and probably biggest issue you would find out is the price for everything. Yeah... Everything is fucking expensive. Every foreign friend of mine has been complaining about it.
I have already stated in here, that social security and education are something that should be available for everyone. However I don't support government meddling with business at all. For simple reason... CORRUPTION. We already see it in USA how easy it's for corporations to buy government officials to make rules in their favor. That only happens when you give government power to meddle with industry.
" Lol, the man types fucking novels on you-tube threads, you must have a lot of free time. Maybe you should find a nice hobby, maybe emerge from your cluttered, sticky-tissue riddled bedrom and catch some sun. "
I already have a hobbies and a life. I feel sorry for you if it takes hours for you to write your small comments. Since I can do these in matter of minute or two. That is not much away from my life. However I find it hilarious that since very beginning you have been trying to go to personal level, yet you fail. The failure is in your misreading of what sort of person I'm. I'm not a troll, I'm not a no lifer, I enjoy my life very much, and yes I have a girlfriend, not only that I'm very social in real life and have plenty of friends who like to offer me free beers whenever we meet. Not only this most of them trust me fully, especially ones whose lives I have saved before. Now good luck trying to insult me, since you need it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mr Ferario Usually the person who resorts calling someone stubborn first is the one who is denying the fact.
" You really think that Intelligence can only bread kindness?"
Mostly yes, most intelligent people of the planet are known from being kind. They do it for knowing how world works, not because feelings say so.
"It's like saying that all scientists were great humanitarians, and none of them ever did anything bad in their life! "
Not all scientists are intelligent.
"Not to mention that "intelligence" is a subjective thing an 'I.Q.' tests aren't an accurate measurement of how "Smart" you are. "
Actually it's objective. Intelligence tests exactly the thing that people expect smart people being capable of. Aka having good deduction skills and problem solving capabilities. And that is exactly what IQ tests tests.
"Yes, They do it for very good reasons alright, even if those reasons would only benefit themselves. Or perhaps its for the "greater good" which they are the center of."
Seems like you're not supporters of greater good and most likely don't even understand the concept. First of all killing someone in order to have money or power for example can have serious consequence beyond acquiring those. Not to mention intelligent people know that power and money means nothing in the end game, hence they are less selfish.
"The smart ones know enough to know how to kill people without getting caught. "
Literally ignored my point. Seems like you're not capable of thinking abstracts. Smart people know that commiting crimes have more cons than pros. They know that it doesn't serve anyone in the long term, and puts them under unnecessary risk.
"Their are already a lot of smart people who were caught in their crimes, or whose crimes we know about today."
And all of them are known to suffer mental illness. While stupid people commit crime only due being too fucking stupid.
"As you said, society is a lot "kinder" today because we aren't as lacking for provisions as we were before."
IT helps but it's not the only reason and I think you ignored the other reasons on purpose simply to serve your own belief.
" That doesn't mean that the people of today aren't capable of being evil, its just that their isn't much need for violence these days. People can still be mean in other ways. And frankly, people are just too lazy to actively be mean if they don't have to. They need some sort of agenda first."
I never claimed that people are perfect now. I simply claimed that technology so far has made us become better people and will do that in future. Especially if we do genetic modifications on people to fix inherent natural issues.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
***** "Not that big actually. "
Huge actually. you see democratic socialists are socialists who think that socialism should be done in democratic fashion. While social democrats are simply democrats who believe that government should provide social services for the people. Like healthcare for example. IT doesn't address how government should treat business.
"in USSR, which was a Republic of Socialists, the opposite of Democratic Socialists. "
literally irrelevant, because both will be screwed as badly for reason that you're too stupid to comprehend.
"The difference is that in a Republic Social state the government controls the people and the taxes just like China and Russia, in a Democratic Social state the people have more control through votes, "
Both of them had voting.
"like most Western countries such as Norway, Sweden, Canada, Denmark etc."
False, I live in nordic country. They aren't democratic socialists at all. In fact they have very free market and low regulations. Which is signs of capitalism not socialism in any level. You're simply one of those idiots who think that having extended welfare is same as being socialist.
"Social Democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism. This prevented bloody coups and violent uprisings."
Still fails for same reason as the violent socialism.
"Basically what Bernie wants is for the people to have a say in how their tax money is spent, from welfare and food stamps to the military budget and infrastructure."
What bernie wants is more poverty and famine.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Erik Le Blanc "
It seems you are talking about the steriotype of socialist you think of. A very negative one might I add. But that's straw man again because you can't attack someone for a stereotype you create about them.
"
It's not stereotype to present dictionary definition.
Also capitalists don't claim that capitalism is perfect. Unlike anarchists and socialists/communists.
"How you sound:"
Comment was not mean for you, but for that anarchist who lives in denial.
"Absolutely, but there are different kind of democracy. Direct democracy is one, that some socialists advocate. Where the people are directly involved in making the decisions, unlike indirect democracy (what we have now) where the people only elect a politician that makes the decisions. "
Not efficient and fails the moment someone invades. You can't hold secrets in this sort of government, which leads to the fact that your enemy reads your moves like an open book.
People should have direct vote on certain issues, like breaking the government if it's not pleasing them.
"Democratic control is also an important one in socialism. Where the workers elect the management of their workplace and are involved in making decisions by the company. "
Nothing stops you making company that works like that in the current system.
If you think it works well then go ahead and show example.
"Anyways, what I meant was that there is no state authority telling the people what to do, like in fascism for example."
Aka no laws.
" I disagree and find that to be a more suitable argument for capitalism. If however it's the former, when you imply that a socialist has a wrong definition of socialist you are only attempting at a straw man fallacy. "
Again dictionary disagrees with you. Second socialism can't work. Good evidence of that is every socialistic country that has been on this planet.
"Unlike you, my understanding of freedom isn't some pretentious theoretical concept that you muse about having. It has to be felt, if it doesn't feel like freedom then you aren't truly free. "
no you don't understand. You're anarchists by default. You don't believe in laws. Because freedom for you means freedom to do literally anything without consequences.
Nothing in current system forces you to work. STOP WORKING. Literally nothing forces you to work. You're free not to work. In current system you're not simply free to stump on other people's freedom and lives.
But hey keep on your anarchist delusion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Aurora "Haha, every single person in the world can create a business?"
Everyone in capitalistic system, yes.
" Those who are inherently impoverished are much less likely to do so, or cannot at all."
That is why they can either work hard to gain enough wealth to build their own business, or find investors or group of people to create company together. Before capitalism this was literally impossible for a peasant.
"Damn, you are so lost. All I read are lies, denial, misinformation, and stereotypical and cliche terminology, and capitalist jargon. "
Says guy who doesn't even understand capitalism nor socialism. Typical anarchists... Only people who don't read history become anarchists.
"and then twist and deny it."
I haven't denied anything, I have said long time ago that capitalism isn't perfect. IT's simply best that we have created so far.
I rather choose freedom over tyranny which you prefer.
". An economist and I definitely know more about capitalism than you. "
literally most famous economists disagree with you, including nobel winning ones.
"I'm done rambling to you."
Because that is all you can do, ramble but not to create actual sound argument.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
M. Woller "Not at all. If a vegan started the war because of veganism, then..."
Nope you can't start war because of veganism because there is nothing in veganism that even talks about war. The reason would be somewhere else.
And here comes my point. Not a single war was caused in name of"CAPITALISM". Reason has always been in somewhere else.
"Complete utter bullshit. The exact opposite of what Marx said. The whole point of socialism is to give the power of the capital to the WHOLE society. That's why it is SOCIALism. Even the word is telling it."
And who represents whole society? THE GOVERNMENT. Fucking idiot..
And What the fuck makes you think it wouldn't be monopoly?
You think there would be different companies when "everyone" owns the fucking same company?
"Exactly and western armies wanted to help the "right side" to win it."
You ignored my point. Soviet union didn't exists, and no russians didn't get help.
"You don't. And on your own you would create near to nothing."
On what ground I cannot control my own company if I create it? Second, Capitalism is about co-operation through consent of all parties. IF I get business idea and put my capital on it to create business. Then I created a company. Then I hire people to help me to build it. Money which goes from my pocket goes all the way through. On what ground you deserve to own my company if you haven't putted a single dime on it?
"If you create a big company then out with your own hands then you really got the right to say: that's mine! I did it! "
So basically you say that guy has no right to claim that he has spended all the money and created the idea to create a company, has no right to say that it's his?
You're a sick twisted fuck.
"Well of course no one has to give a fuck about that, since without the protection and laws of a state there is no property and even murder means nothing, "
How the fuck you ended up in total anarchism now`?
"means everyone can just kill you and take everything. "
Not really. You see actions have consequences. If I would live in lawless state, then those people who would try to murder me would know that I can kill them as well. This is why lawless states never actually exists. BEcause people know that co-operation is more beneficial than backstabbing in long run.
Murdering others you would only increase your chance of getting murdered.
Laws don't exists to prevent murder, they exists to enforce what will happen to those who do so.
"But of course you want that protection, You want everything society gives you, just give nothing back..."
I'm not anarchy capitalist. Fucking idiot..
"As if this happens, when you got the monopol on something people need to survive and capitalism is just that: "
Another example of your stupidity. Only way you can have monopole without state interfering. IS by producing better products with good price, and keep customers more happy than any other rival would do that. And that itself is not bad. And if the company fails to produce good products while pleasing customers in both pr and quality. Then new arrival will crush that company so it no longer is monopoly. Got it now?
The reason why monopoly is so feared, is because if state has monopoly. Then there is no way to compete against it. Hence state owned monopoly has no reason to improve it's products because it doesn't need to fear competition.
Monopoles are actually rare in free economies. Also you totally dodged my point about bankrupcy.
"That's the core of it. The accumulation of capital in the hand of fewer and fewer people. THAT is capitalism.
"
Bloody idiot... Still thinking that economy is zero sum game. I bet you think that we still live in gold standard.
"It's not. Because of this capitalism is against freedom and socialism is freedom. "
How the fuck capitalism which gives freedom for individual to try and create business, is against freedom? But socialism which takes individual's freedom to create business is freedom. You're basically saying that murdering someone is same as giving birth.
"Your whole upper class is ruling your ass by brutal force. "
There is no such thing as classes in western world.
Bloody idiots don't even understand what class meant. You did born into class, in west there isn't any class to be born into.
"Sure you can. The thing you can do not is creating a business to rule over others by controlling the thing they need. "
Business owners don't rule over others, they simply rule over their business. They don't control the things you need.
"The dictator got the most freedom of all people in the world, because he took it away from others."
Actually the opposite. SEems like you haven't studied history at all. Dictators rarely can do whatever they want. for example you can no longer just go to random bar. BEcause you fear that you would be killed on the spot. As dictator you are usually forced to live in life of solitude, and even people who hang around you might seek ways to kill you to get your power. Which actually has been the case every fucking time in human history,
To put it in other way. Which one you thought had mode freedom. Daughter of a merchant or daughter of a queen? In medieval period.
Queen's daughter sure lives life of better quality but daughter of merchant is free to do pretty much anything she wants.
"What you want is just the same as giving a murder the right to kill people, because denying him to do that IS definitely cutting his freedom by a very large margin. "
Oh the irony... Says socialists... It's not like socialists have caused most death and destruction than any other idea on this planet.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Raymond Ogden "
Before you accuse me of not knowing what social democracy means, you should probably check this out..."
I'm using dictionary and wikipedia definition not some propaganda youtube video. Not only this I use my understanding what democracy and socialism is.
The definition of socialism is exactly the same that it's creator marx used.
Your bullshit propaganda video from david's show won't change that fact.
And yes he posts a lot of propaganda.
"The terms have really gotten all jumbled up over the years."
I'm using literally the original definition, not some mindless regressive left defination.
""Democratic Socialism" isn't a thing anymore. Originally it was a term for achieving Marxist Socialism through democratic means. This meant getting the votes of workers to nationalize industries and get social reforms to transition out of capitalism and private ownership and into the kind of Socialism you are talking about. "
Did you even read my comment? I did already say that as the definition. IT's still socialism. It's still government controlling means and production. It's simply done via voting.
The harm will still be exactly the same as in socialists countries.
Heck one could argue that it will be even worse due major population not even understanding economics, and them always placing self interest over what is overall good.
"What Bernie Sanders is advocating is Social Democracy, which is a mixed economy where government acts as a mediator (not a ruler) between the consumer, the worker and the business owner."
That is not social democracy. This is simply leftists attempt to twist meanings of the words, like they always have. For example according to people like you, woman can't be sexists toward a man, because it's no longer about gender but about power.
Also USA is already what you have described. It's already where government is mixing up with business owners and workers. That is actually the problem why you guys have messed up so badly. That is literally the reason why your politicians can be bribed by corporations to make laws to get unfair advantage over their rivals.
" Capitalism is promoted, not opposed."
You don't understand what capitalism is if you think that it's promoted by system like that.
" This hybrid system is social democracy, the kind practiced by Nordic countries and places like Canada"
And it has been failing terribly the moment it has been taken on use. Literally all of nordic countries are suffering economically. Sweden and Finland especially. Now for sweden will become 3th world country in near future according to estimates.
We have large unemployment rate, which will be even higher when taking into account that those who can't get job, will simply go back to school due wanting to do something instead of nothing. This will stress government's economy even more.
The "dream" that bernie is spouting is simply outright lie. For fuck sake I live in a country that you are dreaming off.
"Why doubt the Happiness poll when you can examine the data and the methodologies yourself? I can never take criticism from people seriously who've never actually looked at the data... "
Then you should link the data instead of try say that I should examine data which source you haven't provided. Also All I need to say for criticism is following...
Suicide rates are all time high in these countries.
And mexico also have good happiness rate regardless people wanting to fucking run away from there, regardless the poverty and crime gangs messing up stuff.
"And to pretend that the kind of "consent" arrived at by workers and employers under naked capitalism represents anything close to fairness is absurd."
No? Employer has no responsibility to hire workers. He will only hire if he thinks he needs one. And after that they will negotiate about salary. Literally nothing forces the worker to work on salary that he doesn't like. He can always decline and look for another job, or better, create one on his own.
"The employer holds most of the cards and carries several aces up his sleeve."
Supply and demand. If there are more jobs than workers, then workers have more room to negotiate for salary. You're telling me that employer should be forced to pay more than he can or that the worker is really worth.
" If he could, he'd replace you with a robot or an immigrant, or he'd move production someplace where the worker holds less power than you."
And why shouldn't he be allowed that? Work is not a charity place. It's one individual (or collective group) way to make their living. Just like you who want to work in a firm to gain living. These people simply took bigger risk than you and will have bigger rewards than you if they succeed. And you want to fuck their freedoms for sake of "fairness" by being unfair?
" Or he'll hire a lobbiest to rig the laws in his favor. "
Only possible in the country that bernie dreams of.
"When you say that that there is no consent when the government makes decisions, you choose to ignore the fact that when corruption is low, which it famously is in social democracies, "
False, the corruption is high in these and I have seen it first hand. It simply has different form, in fact couple decades go it was LEGAL to bribe government official. Not anymore though, but now instead of bribery they give positions and stocks of the company that wants to get certain benefits from the government.
Not only this, you ignore nature of corruption which history has proven. The longer any institution exists, the more corrupt it will become over time. This ís empirical fact. Finland is fairly new country in case you didn't know.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+The Ocelot
"Capitalism is a particular mode of production in which all participants—producers and consumers—depend on the market for their basic needs."
They don't depend on market. They depend on themselves. Market is there simply to help and make things easier.
"Waged labor is a defining characteristic, as is private ownership of the means of production. "
Nope. Nothing in definition of capitalism mentions wage labor. It just happens that wage labor is the most convenient form to do work for both employer and the worker.
"although formally (legally; de jure) 'free'—are forced by material circumstances to sell their labor "
Nope. They are not forced by anything. Literally nothing is forcing them. Also they can get their own means of production if they so wish. Literally nothing prevents this in capitalism. You're living in fantasy world where single individual from working "class" family cannot buy a computer in order to develop own program which to sell, or start doing woodwork on his own.
"It doesn't mean whatever you want it to."
yet that is how you define it.
"As for bourgeois liberalism, all that's happened is the "divine rights of kings" were replaced with the equally farcical "natural rights." Said to come from a deity which cannot be proven to exist. "
No?
"Capitalism (like feudalism) most certainly involves class divisions that facilitate the accumulation of wealth by a small minority on the backs of the majority. "
There are no classes or division in capitalism. There are simply people who take the risk and create their own company, and those who don't want to take the risk and rather work for someone else.
"All new value in society comes from work/workers."
Objectively false. Also you need to demostrate this.
"That new value, called surplus value, is privately appropriated by capitalists"
Is it? How come? Oh wait. I forgot. Socialist believe that they should be allowed to use a machine that someone else created, without their permission and use resources that someone else owns, in order to produce something and never give anything back in return... I forgot that you support stealing from people.
" who own, control, and manage the entire process of production and distribution for the whole society. "
This is fallacious. Since you already separate capitalists into class of people who own something, then by definition simply by owning something they are only people who own it. However you fail to take into account in this idiotic narrative of yours. That anyone, literally anyone can own, control and manage mean of production or distribution in capitalist society. You can go and create one even now if you so wish.
"and socialism is not a fucking synonym for govt)"
It's because it needs government in order to be enforced and exists.
"What you say about "socialism" or government (and socialism is not a fucking synonym for govt) is functionally identical in capitalism. "
Not at all. Otherone is governed by politicians, and otherone is governed by the individuals themselves who worked hard to create it. Aka capitalism.
"n order not to starve, the worker, who possesses or controls no means of production, must sell her or his labor power to the capitalist"
Nope, that said worker can create his own means of production. Not only that, he is free to choose where to work. You do realize that companies actually compete with each others in order to hire the best employees?
Also, in western capitalist model. No one needs to work in order to avoid starvation. Pretty much every capitalist country on the planet, provide welfare to their citizens. Enough to eat and come by.
Therefore there is no exploitation or any sort of force.
Socialist 0
Capitalist over nine thousand.
1
-
+The Ocelot
"The capitalists’ ownership of the means of production is what's used to justify depriving workers of any legal right to keep the product"
Deprive what? What right? Person who owns his own means of product and hires someone to help him haven't deprived anyone's product.
What you want to do is to deprive worker's right to wage.
"The capitalist takes everything that the worker produces"
Nope. Product that worker produces is his work effort. Not the product that goes to sell. You have very twisted world view. Too much indoctrinate... You're basically telling. That the man who pays your salary. Pays the needed resources for the product, provide needed tools to produce something, made the idea of said product. Shouldn't get anything in return.
"Of course all new value is created through the efforts of work and workers. "
Objectively false. Value is created from effort of everyone in the company. CEO has biggest influence on the value, then managers etc... The burger flippers actually provide least value to the company.
" You think the first spear or the latest iPhone got here by magic?"
It got by because there were people with ideas and wanted to profit form said idea. Funnily enough, your very sentence is kind of argument against socialism and communism.
"And the idea of people just magically acquiring capital out of nowhere is undermined by a simple look at what actually happens in the world."
Do you know what capital is? It's pretty much synonymous with word wealth. But capital is accumulation of said wealth. The value of wealth is highly subjective. For example painting which worth is 1 000 000 Is wealth. However not that many people would like to even pay for that painting even a 1 dollar. So value of wealth is subjective. Capital can be created out of nowhere as long as there is someone willing to trade for it.
"Typically workers lack the resources because they are forcibly deprived of the land"
Nope. They don't lack resources. Typically workers can get loan. Save money (reality check for you, in capitalist countries average worker earns more than enough to make his or her own business in less than year), they can find investors for their idea and they can find people who are willing to put their wealth together in order to create something together.
In case you didn't know. Capitalism has lifted a lot poor people out of poverty. In fact creating their own business has been the prime factor for this. Since for poor and uneducated, the best way to go up, is through creating new business.
"which they need to survive) "
No they don't. Also it's not theirs by birthright. In modern capitalist countries there is this thing called as welfare. Aka we provide social security for those who don't have jobs or a company. Aka no one dies to starvation unless they mess their own things up.
"Lastly, people don't 'depend on themselves.'"
Expect they do. There are plenty of examples of people doing this.
" Go live on an island and re-create what capitalists take advantage of all on your own. "
Your argument makes no sense here. In fact it's ridiculous. Same time you claim that capitalist does nothing to deserve from the profits of product sold. While Claiming that worker did it all on his own and did not need resources, ideas and management etc...
You're contradicting yourself. Capitalism isn't about last man standing. It's about people co-operating among each others. And the thing which makes them co-operate among themselves is because they all get something in return.
Worker gets stable job, no risk of losing his capital over it, no stress over losing whole life over screwing up one product, less competitive environment, secure source of income.
While boss, gets extra helping hand, or someone who is capable of doing something which he is not. While he provides security and stable income to people who help him. In return, he get's SMALL SLICE of the actual product that has been sold. I bet you haven't heard about profit margin... Its actually very low. Workers gain bigger part of the sold products income than actual boss. Reason why bosses are rich is because small rivers great big one. There is a limit how much one can produce on his own.
"Which you'd never produce on your own in a thousand years. "
which is why socialism that you propose will never work. Oh wait... How about you confirm what sort of socialist you are? One of those who want to see big government/union? Or those who want to have company where only people who build the product will get the profit?
All of them are shitty options, but your system in both cases will lower the productivity in long term.
1
-
+The ocelot
Wealth is not abstract concept. Wealth is anything that can be traded.
"The ones who can most easily acquire stocks of value (capitalists) are not the ones who personally use the businesses"
False, they conduct organizing, managing, pr, designing, idea and even provide resources needed to even create that mean of labor in the first place. CEO isn't just some guy who smokes cigar and puts hit legs on the table. It's actually highly stressful job which demands large set of skills in order to be done well.
"They merely own, and thus control, what workers make productive use of. "
This is misconception, based on people being too stupid to realize the value of CEO, idea creation and management.
"At any rate, you're making purely normative assumptions about the nature of reality which you clearly conflate with capitalist relations"
Nature of reality is that no one is entitled to anything.
" For starters, capitalists aren't always inventors (with an n) or managers."
But generally they are. Generally they come up with the idea by themselves. Even if they were simply investors, they are still producing value to the company by providing resources for the company to exists.
Is it wrong to ask something in return after all the time and resources you did spend on something? What is wrong with you?
" that's it, no tangible societal contribution is required for the existence of such a person. "
just because you're incapable of thinking what sort of contribution they do, doesn't mean that they don't contribute. In fact they more likely contributed far more than you have ever contributed your life.
"Your assertion that people do things "for profit" is delusional if not dishonest."
False, we can see thins when comparing public and private workers. Public workers are generally lazy and try to avoid work. Have you ever even done school project with group of class mates? In those cases you will notice that most of the group doesn't do anything for that project. It's delusional to assume that mankind had evolve into specie that loves to waste energy. That wouldn't be beneficially in natural selection. Using less energy to achieve something is what is natural to survive. Being lazy is the optimal.
"Tribes, bands, and clans within hunter-gatherer societies (which were non-capitalist) literally did not have capitalism."
Their societies were made out of 10-20 people. The reason why they never ended up having complex societies is precisely because they didn't have concept of ownership. Also all of those societies were lead by one dictator like leader. Not to mention, they actually had capitalism. That was when they traded with other tribes. You see there is not much business and commerce going on, if only thing your tribe does is to HUNT AND GATHER FOOD. Idiot...
You were quick to notice that literally every society on the planet started to have capitalistic tendencies the moment they grew out from hunter-gatherer societies.
" No waged labor, no private property"
Actually there was wage. You weren't getting any slice of meat if you didn't contribute. In fact you would be exiled if you did nothing.
"absolutely no profit motive"
Expect the profit was to get some fucking food. Since hunter society only lives by hunting. So only form of profit they can have is by having more meat.
You and sinistar both stand for slavery and subjucation of mankind into brainless mass. You want to see whole world living again in stone age where progress and technology would never advance.
1
-
+The Ocelot
"'ve encountered your script countless times before."
Oh what a coincidence. Since I have encountered your script as well. However in the end of the day... Mine always wins against socialist.
"Capitalism isn't just two people exchanging goods that both parties prefer."
It literally is.
"That's the oversimplified, romanticized version based on selective aspects of early mercantilism and proto-capitalism."
Oh and socialism isn't romanticized? Also, yes it's oversimplified. However it doesn't make it untrue.
"Capitalism is not barter, and for most of human history and pre-history, people would have lived under something more akin to a gift economy."
Barter is part of it.
"For just about the entirety of human pre-history, no one was buying or selling anything on or at a market of any kind. There wasn't even money with which to do so."
There wasn't markets back in then. It was the invention of agriculture and currency that allowed civilization to appear. Aggriculture for stable source of food which encouraged people to settle instead of constantly moving like swarm of locus. And currency in order to develop higher function societies. Since it made trade far more convenient. Therefore it allowed artsts, inventors, scholars, entertainers etc... to appear. Since now they could have something to use to trade with others.
"What you claim about "entitlements" (despite how you clearly have your own (libertarian) theory of entitlement) is based on culturally and legally defined conventions that are as socially and institutionally coercive as any other "ism." i.e. your biased-towards-capitalism assertions about who you think is "entitled" to what. Whatever that means"
Nothing in this comment actually addresses anything I had said. It seems that you're sophists. Incapable to conduct intelligent and honest debate. Therefore you start talking about shit like this which is irrelevant. As I said, no one is entitled on anything. You claim that people have this magical entitlement to everything in the cosmos without even providing any evidence for it.
"As for capitalists, they are only rarely also inventors or creators of some kind. Inventors and designers (as an example) are a kind of worker. Not capitalists. This is just romanticized garbage about capitalists being inventors and shit. "
Ah... I forgot that I was dealing with socialist who thinks that business owner is definition of capitalist. Capitalist is anyone who believes that private sector has right to own their own means of production and distributions of good while allowed to build up their capital.
Capitalist is not business owner, however business owner most likely is capitalist.
Also there is a reason why capitalist countries are most advanced countries on the planet. Which even produce most technology to help mankind. That is because capitalism encourages invention and creation.
"The vast majority of people on the planet work to pay rent for some meager shelter that they can be violently dispossessed of at any time."
Vast majority of people on the planet doesn't live under capitalism. Those who live, under capitalism can easily pay their rent and have one of the best homes in the world.
You do realize that it's mostly western countries and asian countries that adopted western model that are capitalist?
"hat predicament is no accident and it reflects the ugliness of the system you support."
I'm sorry, but the fact that someone is starving in socialist country or SOCIALISTIC country where private property laws don't exists and government regulates everything. However that has nothing to do with capitalism. That has everything to do with socialism. North korea isn't starving because they have capitalism. The opposite.
"And you have the gall to tell others they support subjugation. No sense of irony."
Talk about sense of irony when you support bigger government while it's the very government that put those people into that situation.
"Capitalism as described by actual economists and historians has not been around as long as you erroneously assume it has. "
Marx wasn't either of those.
IT's empirical and objective fact. That capitalist countries are most prosperous countries on the planet and provide best quality of life to their people. Europe, America, Canada, Japan, South-Korea, Hong kong, Singapore. New zealand, Chile etc... Are all free market capitalist countries. There isn't a single socialist country on this planet which provides better standard for living than these.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+The ocelot
"I don't have a script. You do."
prove it.
"If I re-iterate the same basic points you haven't understood"
Says guy who's "basic concept" don't even match dictionaries.
" Also things like barter, which you conflate with "capitalism." Barter is not "a part of capitalism" either. "
Ahaa... So under capitalism... People are simply forced to buy product and cannot refuse to not to do so... Really... Hmm I didn't know that I were forced to buy all the products in the shop where I visited yesterday. That sure is interesting theory you have there. You sure you even live in west?
Capitalism, noun
1. An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
British dictionary.
Capitalism. Noun
1. Also called free enterprises, private enterprises. An economic system based on the private ownership of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom capitalist to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.
Wordnik
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
"!* weren't * agriculture "
?
"and claimed that prehistoric people practiced capitalism somehow."
Nope, never made such claim. Capitalism is relatively new thing. I were simply explaining trade and how currency was created. Since socialist don't understand either of them.
"Being nomadic is irrelevant. Hunter-gatherers literally had no wage-labor. "
It's highly relevant. Since the system you advocate cannot work in modern world. It can only apply if only resource people rely on is food.
"Most of the planet is capitalist, yes."
False, most are socialist. Where government owns/controls means of productions, where private property laws are weak or non-existent and are heavily regulated.
Most if not all, western countries and those that adopted their culture are capitalist.
"Name one country where no private property laws exist"
Not going to bother to research every law book in the world. However there can be weak property laws. For example of government can come in and take your property. Then you have weak law. Pretty sure though that there is no property law in north-korea.
Go to economic freedom index. You will notice, that all countries which are poor. Are also countries with least amount of economic freedom. Use heat map and choose property rights part. It will show clearly the problem. Also I confused word law into rights. My point was that most countries have poor property rights. However you need laws to ensure property rights, I hope you got the point.
Both socialism and communism are cancer of the world. Both create poverty and misery.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rileymiller7786
"I did say multiple times that he could site statistics and facts to back up his claim. "
I don't care what you said to him. Also simply posting statistics around doesn't really mean that you understand said statistics or that they have been made well.
"No the US does not pay for the Nordic countries social welfare."
I never said that. Directly they don't, but they enable it by providing military help in case they are invaded. Even when Finland is not part of Nato, we are still co-operating with USA.
"You’ll find that these Nordic countries spend about 1% of their GDP on their military which is the same for almost all other countries."
Nope, Doesn't apply to Finland. And that is because we actually live next to a country that can be a threat.
"What does military might have to do with anything?"
Military is the most vital function of any government on the planet. If it's possible to cut it's spending by having another country defending you. Then you have more money on other services.
"If you got to choose what country you lived in, are you going to prioritise a countries populations health and wellbeing for the size of its military? "
None of these countries would exists without having strong defensive forces.
"Is simply wrong and I urge you to watch this video which basically refuted all anti Medicare "
Not going to watch long video when I already provided actual raw numbers to prove my point. You can do the math yourself. Oh wait... I'm dealing with left winger. I guess I need to provide for you.
Source for social service spending.
Ministry of social affairs and health.
69.1 Billion.
Population size 5.5 million
USA population 328 million.
Let's compare the difference in population.
328 million divided by 5.5 million = 59,63636363636364
Then add the cost of project. To that difference.
69.1 billion times 59,63636363636364
= 4120872727272,728
Now let's turn that into dollars.
4,667,927,637,357.704 USD.
Aka 4.6 trillion dollars. You would be doubling the current spending. There is literally no way for you guys to pay it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rileymiller7786
You don't even know what Gish gallop is? it's basically debate tactic where you flood your opponent with information and arguments without giving them time to address them. Or makes it so that it's extremely tedious to address every point he made.
"That video showed that Medicare could indeed be paid for in the US and would actually be cheaper than the current system. "
He didn't show, he claimed.
And he didn't say that it's cheaper than current system on total to the government. In fact it would be more expensive to the government and tax payers. He simply compared it to how much people already pay combined in private and public sector.
However it still wouldn't remove the cost made by regulatory burden created by government of USA, and like always shown in history. Everything government does is less effective than private.
For same reason no one in here uses public healthcare system if they have something serious.
" You’re just butthurt that your maths got debunked "
He didn't debunk my math. In fact he didn't even address it.
"Ok 1 I’m not just talking about Finland here, two the average suicide rate in the Nordic countries "
Moving a goalpost. Existence of Finland already breaks your correlation.
"Your healthcare refute was pitiful, if you’re seriously suggesting that the US healthcare system is superior to that of the Nordic countries, then you’re clueless."
System? Depends how you define what is better. But when it comes to quality of doctors and treatment... Yeah USA has it better. Thanks to their system they even provide new medical knowledge, techniques and tech that other countries don't produce.
"Your Personal experience doesn’t speak for your entire country + Norway, Sweden and Denmark’s. Statistics show these counties are healthier. "
Correlation does not imply causation. As said, this can be explained with healthier life style, and genetics.
" but you’re crazy if you think discrimination is more a problem there than in the states. "
Depends how you define discrimination. But again, come here and find out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rileymiller1294
"I want to clarify, want is your actual position on this US Nordic countries thing, is your position that the US is a better place to live than these countries?"
In some cases, yet and in some no. Depends on state you live in and what you actually value the most.
"Continuing with the healthcare debate The money is saved by using a public healthcare system (still retaining private health) by reducing the huge overhead wastage costs."
you do realize that the whole wastage cost is purely based on government regulations? Regulations that nordic countries don't even have.
" the second biggest source of savings would be through the ridiculously high pharmaceutical drugs, with the US spending on average twice as much for their pharmaceuticals than other high income nations."
Regulations <3... Not to mention tarrifs. But then again... Why I'm surprised that left winger never even thinks why the prices are so high.
"its been measured that the US would save 2 trillion from this over 10 years"
Colleges got more expensive once government started to intervene with it. What makes you think that those companies won't just increase the prices since they know that tax payers will pay them anyway?
"Also are you happy with thousands of Americans dyeing yearly because that cant afford healthcare? or 29 million Americans being uninsured? "
It's people's own responsibility to take care of their own health. If we look at them at individual cases, we will most likely find some drug addicts who prioritize getting a new shot over getting medical treatment.
" or 29 million Americans being uninsured? "
This is bad why?
"Also cut the appeal to authority crap."
It's a logical fallacy, so maybe you should stop? Also Rand paul and Ron paul were both doctors. Both disagree with you.
"Sweden, England, Denmark, Japan, Germany, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland... all have some form of universal healthcare."
All are countries which have been lately cutting their spending in welfare projects and countries that have huge debt issues because of welfare projects.
Plus lot of those are actually more free economically and have less corporate tax rates. Now I need to make another comment because otherwise youtube won't show this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rileymiller7786
It's a fallacy, look it up. Very common one in fact.
"did I say that? No. Again I’ll repeat myself. "
Yes you did and I quote:
" and it’s coming from an experienced doctor."
Like as if him being doctor is somehow relevant.
"Why do you think studies always include the person occupation?"
Good question. Why do you take marx seriously even though he isn't economist?
"Because it adds credibility to their claim."
No it doesn't. In studies no one cares are you doctor or not. They care how the study was made and can it be repeated.
"Show me where these governments have been cutting there social spending"
How? You want to read articles in Finnish? How big part of the country got angry because of the cuts?
"Yes regulations, like no shit, the government needs to regular the pharmaceutical companies."
No they don't, and most of those regulations are purely there because they were lobbied by big corporations to keep smaller competition down.
"then the pharmaceutical companies set their price extremely high because they no the consumer really dosent have a choice if he wants to cure his illness,"
They have choice to buy the medicine elsewere. The profit margin in actual products is actually pretty low.
"ell the Proposed universal US system wants to get rid of this private overhead cost, your finish government didn’t? Cool, irrelevant"
You haven't shown any data to support this claim.
"ahhh if the studies show that North Koreans are living a higher life expectancy and not dieing due to not being able to afford healthcare like in the US"
Correlation does not imply causation, and you're missing the point.
Again, higher life expectancy can be explained by many different factors.
" But what use is it if you can’t afford it?"
Insurances, charities, take a loan etc...
". Are you ok with this? You didn’t answer"
Again, it's not my responsibility to pay life choices of others. Most of the medical problems are purely caused by lifestyle and people being stupid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rileymiller7786
My actual expertise is IT. I could easily track you through security holes on Discord.
"You are so wack bro, like I’m going hop on a plane and fly to Finland you fucking doofus."
Or just ask some far left anarchist group in here to do something. It's pretty obvious that you people have connections. And in all honesty, that has happened before. The suggestion you just had made. There is literally 0 reasons to do this discussion on discord, when it can be done in here.
"You’re clearly too insecure to chat to anyone, I understand"
What? How is this related to someone being insecure? You have some serious issues if you think that someone can be insecure over voice chat.
"Why do you think no wealthy country has your system in place? "
Why do you think that all the most wealthiest countries have most freest markets on the planet?
While countries with lot of regulations and government control/ownership are poor?
". You just admitted you’re ok with thousands if not millions dying because they can’t afford it "
If they can't afford it, then the society can't afford it. And I never said that I'm okay with thousands of people dying. That is a strawman from your part. I simply stated that there are better solutions than stealing from future generations.
"oh yeah all the people who get cancer and other sickness, fuck them by your logic. You’re a sick human being, who lacts any empathy "
Sure that's why I donate big junk of my wealth monthly... Because I'm sick human being who lacks any empathy.
Cancer and other sickness are actually very rare things, and can be treated pretty cheaply depending on the severity. However get cancer in public healthcare and you will die before you get treatment.
At least you can be in debt and alive in USA.
"Oh yeah, show me all these economists who want a total free market health system, I’ll wait. "
Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, both are Nobel winners.
Then Johan Norbeg.
Those three I can name out of my hat. Most economist stand for free market since they understand that more free the market is, the better opportunities people have to make business.
"I bet you’re in favour of scrapping the minimum wage too you maniac"
Nordic countries don't have minimum wage laws and wages are higher than in USA.
"Here’s you link to show that 70% of Americans are dissatisfied with their current private system"
Does not mean that they are in favor for public healthcare.
Also you can't trust polls. Didn't the last election already show why?
"you’re just a scared, Insecure little girl"
Calling me as a girl? Is that suppose to be an insult? Seems like left wingers are bigger sexists than right wingers.
Yep you went full crazy the moment you started doing thrash talk and avoided all the points I had made. I already know how crazies like you work. Done this before.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+deltaxcd
"Ok, so why are you equating result with process?"
Seems like you are one of those people who advocate any means necessary thought...
Since the goal is impossible to reach. And the methods to try to reach it is even more flawed than wanted end result itself. Then process is very important.
"what does it mean thinks same?"
Is incapable to be individual. How more specific I need to be? Aka no one feels like committing crime. No one has weird desires. No one would want to own something. etc...
"You mean everyone has to like same movie and same food, or just everyone has to have same basic moral values?"
Moral value does not constitute moral behavior. Lot of people who believe that killing is wrong, end up killing someone.
"US south and west also had a war to make each other think same one of them thought slavery is good another thought it is bad."
Civil war wasn't about slavery. That is biggest myth of all time when it comes american history.
"What if I want to use slave labor in my factory? "
You're not answering the question. And worker who works for wage isn't a slave.
"However in essence what you want is simply subordinate other people and take them under your own control,"
Nope. I just want people who are willing to help me in order to get payment in return. I wouldn't control them, I would simply pay them for their help.
"but you cant pay other people to do what you tell them to do you are not allowed to motivate anyone in any way."
So I can't ask people to help me and offer to give them something in return for that help?
"Under communism nobody will try to kill you but they will just laugh at you as if you were some idiot or comedian. "
You have no evidence for this. In fact you would kill. That is why communists always kill. You are all maniacs who are incapable to feel empathy.
"nobody will respect your property rights because if you build factory whoever wants will come and use it unless you run around with gun and chase everyone out."
Okay I shoot them in self-defence. Since there is no state. There is now law. I can kill without police coming in and taking me.
Also it's funny that you're literally too stupid to see problems when no one respects property rights... Have you ever even lived in slums? Have you seen how people treat public property?
Not only you would discourage people from creating any services. You would even see any possible service created, being destroyed.
"please check definition of communism again"
I have. Communism is about collectivism.
"There is hierarchy of subordination as there are workers and employers, producers and customers worker does what employer tells him to do. "
You don't need to work for someone. Is it wrong to choose to work for someone if you want to do so? You are in fact going now against human nature. You do realize that we naturally form hierarchies. even among friends. This is psychological fact that has been demonstrated.
"all capitalist society is based on the fact that one part of society is doing what other part of society wants them to do."
Nope. Capitalist society is based on every one serving one and another. Consumer wants product X. company provides X for in return of Y. Consumer wants to gain more of Y, so he creates service which allows him to gain more Y.
It's all based on human beings being free and voluntary exchanging their services with one another.
"what those like minded people are for"
Again. To ensure that communism would work. You do realize that anarchy doesn't work? In order for it to work, people would need to be exactly the same.
"Africa and use slave labor just like it was done for thousands of years."
fun fact... Africans did actually use northern european slaves far before europe did use africans as slaves. Also whole planet had slavery thing going on.
"So what they are trying to accomplish with that."
Again... YOU NEED STATE TO ENFORCE LAWS AND RULES. IF EVERYONE THINKS AND ACTS THE SAME. THEN THERE WOULD BE NO ONE BREAKING LAWS OR RULES. That is what they are trying to accomplish with that. They were smart enough to see that anarchism doesn't work if people are different.
"stop parroting stupid propaganda quotes from Hollywood movies and answer the question."
It's not hollywood movies. I don't even watch those. IT'S FROM THEIR VERY OWN BOOKS. READ THEM FOR FUCK SAKE. It's as if I'm dealing with christian who has never read bible... I'm dealing with communists who haven't even read marx, engels or lenin.
"just like you cant have society where slavery is allowed and forbidden at the same time."
Slavery is not allowed.
Why all the communists are so idiotic? It's as if you guys are incapable to think. You cannot even think how to implement this society of yours and what would be the after effects of it. That is literally how stupid you are. You're incapable to deal with abstract thoughts.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
David... He criticizes left because, left has abandoned it's principles and has become something which it should've never been.
What used to be left? It wasn't about giving special privileges, it was about having equal rights. It was about having freedom of speech.
Now? Left is nothing more than people who wish that Orwell's dystopia would be reality. For them it's utopia. That includes you David. One should criticize the group he is part of, in order to make sure that it never falls and becomes corrupted.
Let's put it this way... You hate Stalin, but if you would've been left winger of that time. You would have called everyone who criticizes stalin as right wing facists. That is the true you.
Now this whole video from David is nothing more than ad hominem. Trying to dismiss his opinions and videos by stating "oh this is just new format to make lot of money" or "he never analyzes policies (which he actually has done multiple times)".
Tax code, climate change... None of that has to do anything with you trying to pretend that Stalin is was right winger.
He didn't attempt to refute. He did refute. He is popular only because he actually shows intellectual honesty. Unlike you.
Now let's address your retarded argument.
5,29: It's not about disagreement on some stances. Left and right spectrum doesn't actually tell what you stand for. Left winger can like some right wing ideas as some right wingers can like some left wing ideas.
However, you made STANCE that EVERYTHING IN LEFT IS GOOD, AND EVERYTHING IN RIGHT IS BAD. This is extremist way of thinking. You're not even considering the possibility that you might be wrong, and the moment someone points out flaws in your tribal group (aka left wing), that is the moment when you say "oh no... That wasn't the true left wing... That was right wing".
Got it? This isn't simply having stance in issue X. This is you ignoring the flaws of your tribe and blaming it on something else. This is what sargon was talking about.
And now you start circling around and not actually addressing his point. You're doing sophism.
You said that Stalin is right wing... Okay to be more accurate. YOU mentioned that these right wingers, while posting picture of stalin and few other monster in your video. That is dishonest to do unless you viewed stalin as right winger.
Scholars don't think he is right wing. Only some sects of communists. For communists you are right winger btw.
Stalin was archetype of leftists. Violent revolution, forcing people to live exactly like he forces them to do, believed in big government, He did advocate egalitarianism and workers right, environmentalism? That is a new thing. It never was part of left expect in modern era when people actually understood consequences of industrialization, anti-foreign interventionism? Since when that was left policy? That became their policy only when bush was as a president. Left loved when soviets were invading countries. Left loved when obama was bombing middle-east. Left even wanted to have war with russia because of syria, anti-nationalism... Well he was anti-nationalist.. etc... In fact... Killing opposition is the most archtype action of the left. The very first people who were labeled as left, caused violent revolution and purged everyone who wasn't violent thug like them. Already forgot france revolution and what happened after it?
Implemented socialism in inherently right wing? You don't even know what left and right wing are. You simply used buzzwords which your brain cannot comprehend. Most leftist on the planet did worship him at the time. A lot still do. He didn't do anything that was inherently right wing. Was very different from marxism? NO, IT WAS EXACTLY MARXISM. HAve you even read communists manifesto? They followed it by the book. MARX BELIEVED THAT STATE NEEDED TO BE BIG IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE COMMUNISM. HE believed that only way to for communism to appear is by violence and force.
You are literally too stupid to understand how the disolvement of the government would happen according to marx and angels. They believed that it will naturally wither down, when the all people think and act exactly the same. Because for them STATE was force of coercion, and there is no need to coerce someone to do something if everyone agrees.
This means... That it was states job to murder, brainwash, exile, persecuted everyone who didn't think exactly the same. Until everyone thinks exactly the same. Stalin followed marx by the book.
So you're saying... now that Stalin wasn't left wing, because he failed to bring communism to about. But here is what you fail to comprehend... Communism is unachievable. MARX WAS WRONG, marx was an idiot who didn't understand psychology, history nor economics. His whole book was just trying to justify him being lazy (which he was). It's idiotic to think that government will disolve when giving more power to it. He assume that those who come from proletarian classes will stay proletarian after they gain power. HE failed to comprehend... That what we call as a class is purely social construct. There is no classes, not even in today's world. We simply categorize people into classes on various basis. Anything that is different is a class in people's eyes. And new classes can be created anytime. Which is exactly what happened in soviets and in every socialist state on the planet that has ever existed. New political class will be created. Politicians don't feel any tribal need to care about the people. They view themselves as superior regardless do they belong to the "same class". So they start to distinct themselves from rest of the people.
Nothing that they did was right wing. Also here is where your stupidity comes in. You think that right wing is totalitarianism. But you fail to understand... totalitarianism is different thing in political spectrum. There is left wing and right wing totalitarianism.
Also Bolshevist weren't right wingers in any shape or form. It's not an objective fact and you even fail to demonstrate it. You simply call everything totalitarian as right wing. According to
political compass test... Stalin is left wing.
Left and right isn't about authority. Left advocates COLLECTIVISM AND TRIBALISM. Aka group over individual. While right wing advocates individuals rights. You can see this even in modern left vs right. Right stands for rights of individuals, while left demands that people should be treated as collective groups.
So I can stop at 9 by now. Also marx, lenin, engels. They all believed in dictatorship of the proletarians. Go and figure that one out.. You're so fucking stupid... They all believed that proletarians should be totalitarians until all class distinctions would've have been purged from the world. Stalin did exactly that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Roy Long
What makes you think that you're not the revisionist one? It's bit obvious that you don't know jack shit about history. Which is why you support socialism.
"Many people in the south still believe the war is about fighting for independent, not about slavery. "
I'm pretty sure that people of south knows better than you, about what they wanted to fight for.
" The Civil War is about slavery, slavery, and slavery, period! "
It was about federal government extending it's power to the point that southern states considered as inappropriate. Look up the history of it. Slavery was just one reason out of many.
". I can correctly assume a similar result if I discuss with you about evolution, small government, tax cuts, supply side economics, climate change, the Great Depression, etc. "
Why is evolution relevant to this? Oh wait... you think I'm some sort of stereotypical southerner from texas?
I believe in evolution. Smaller government has been proven to be best way to fight against corruption and tyrannical politicians, tax cuts are proven to increase economy, supply and demand is a thing which you probably don't even now about (socialist never do), Climate change is real and the great depression was caused by federal Reserve, as they admitted later on. Even world renown economist Milton Friedman pointed it out.
"So you're a conservative?"
Word progressive and conservative no longer describe the person like they should. Most progressives are regressive.
Since you're such an useful idiot and try to commit ad hominem in here. As you had btw...
I will refute your idiotic tribalistic attitude. I'm libertarian who lives in European country called as Finland.
I'm atheist, I believe that everyone should be equal under the law, I spend my free time following news about science and reading about subjects that actually matters (history, economics, law, philosophy, ethics etc..), I believe in pro-choice, etc..
This might be hard for you to comprehend since you are collectivists. In your eyes anyone who disagrees with you is an monster and assume that they disagree with you on every issue. This is all because you have a low IQ and incapable to do rational thinking. All the ideas you are for and support, is purely because people around you have them. Not because you were independent free thinker. This is why you keep resorting in such idiotic arguments, because you don't even understand the things you are for. You are just a sheep.
1
-
+Roy long
I love how you call me as moron because of mistaking your political positition. Meanwhile you went ahead and thought i'm some southtern american bible thumber. This is big problem of yours... You're not capable to objective thinking. You call someone as moron for doing same you just had done moment ago. You aren't even self-aware so I have hard time to see you as a human. You're basically just another animal in my eyes, afterall... Most animals on planet lack self-awareness according to studies.
"We have a mixed economy of capitalism and socialism,"
That is false, and only a person who doesn't understand what capitalism and socialism is, could state so. Socialism is about government owning means of productions. Government doesn't own them not even half.
What you have is keynisian economics.
"Whether you like it or not, you live in or near a socialist region"
outrightly false. European countries are not socialist. I repeat only ignorant person would say so, even hard blooded socialists would come and punch you into face and call you as facists for making idiotic statement like that.
"Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark provide free college education and health care in a form of higher taxes. "
Socialism is not same as social programs. You idiots need to realize this by now. Also they don't tax riches to pay those things. They increase product prices with the taxes... Not only that, but they all have around 5-10 million people in population. City of New York has more population than all of these countries combined. Do you understand what that means? Ever heard such thing as supply and demand?
If population would be as high as in USA, the cost of living would go absurdly higher in those countries. Because there would be more demand than supply for the products. So unless you want to kill 90% of america's population... Then nordic model won't work.
"Thousands of people here died every single year because they don't have health insurance, and national student loan debt has reached $1 trillion"
Other people shouldn't be paying your poor life choices. Nothing forces you to take student loan and trade school is far more beneficial financially than college.
"I have also looked into libertarianism. Libertarians like Ron Paul and Peter Schiff are well known in America. One is a politician and the other is a successful business man. Both are New York Time bestsellers. At the same time, they're con artists."
Nothing but poisoning the well argument from your part. Bernie is the true con artists. Oh already forgot his 3 houses and the fact that he paid less taxes in the past than Trump did? Bernie literally uses every tax cut he can get his hands on. If you're going to call someone as con artists, then it's up to you to prove it. Since you did just commit libel.
"Yes, they hate government "
They don't hate government. They know enough of history of mankind and have intellengece to realize that the more power you give to someone over your life, the more they can abuse it. Historically, government has ALWAYS ended up abusing it's power. Politicians aren't some all powerful angels.
"All these predictions have been wrong."
First of all, you need to provide evidence that they had even made such predictions after something was implemented that they were against of. Second, people make mistakes constantly no matter what political stance they have. Especially in economics which are far more complex subject than your little brain is capable to handle. But want to hear libertarian predictions that came true? Milton friedman. Nobel price winner and most renowned economist of last century. He was able to predict precisely all the current EU problems caused by EURO currency.
"So I can safely assume you're a "libertard.""
Nothing but a petty insult without you providing any actual argument to prove any of my statement wrong. You lost this battle and the war included with this.
1
-
+Roy long
" The US GDP is about $19 trillion."
And? How is this relevant to anything I had said? You come and tell me to get my facts right then throw some random pieces of knowledge that isn't relevant to anything I had said.
"About $4 trillion is on defense programs"
And? I haven't spoken anything about defense programs or their costs.
"and social security and other other federal/social programs."
You are not addressing anything I had said before.
" A large portion of the GDP is in the private sector, including agriculture, industry, and services."
Yes? Your point is?
"because I've noticed you offered very little evidence or sources for your claims, "
How is that different from you? You want sources? GOOGLE OUT DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM. It's about who owns means of productions not about social welfare. Every dictionary on planet points that one out. So I quote them all.
Google supply and demand to understand why the prices in USA would increase if you were to introduce nordic model in there.
Reason I didn't start throwing actual sources for these stuffs because I assumed that you're not ignorant enough to not to know about these. But apparently I'm talking with an actual idiot who doesn't even understand basic knowledge from CIVICS. STUFF THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSE TO TEACH YOU AT SCHOOL.
"Let's talk about the ring-wing maniac in the White House who is also a compulsive liar and cheater. In case you're ignorant, Donald Trump is a German descent"
Trump has nothing to do with anything I have said here.
" his father Fred was arrested in New York for demonstration with the KKK"
And? Meanwhile Hillary's mentor and a close friend was a grandwizard of KKK. Your point is? Are you going to say that Trump is racists because of actions of his father, and because of his german descent? You do realize that you just made racist comment and biggoted one at that. Worse.. It has nothing to do with anything I had said.
"But the part that you might not know is that Trump hasn't paid much taxes for years, "
According to last returns that was shown in public. He actually paid larger percentage than Obama or Bernie.
But still... how is this relevant to anything we were discussing?
You claim that you are disproving my bullshit statement by talking about something that wasn't related to my statement.
"Again, I did give you the evidence of the predictions made by Paul and Schiff."
What predictions? What are you talking about. I did just go through our comment section again and saw zero predictions.
"Those claims and predictions are in their books."
Someone making predictions doesn't mean they are right. There are millions of predictions made and only couple of them hit the mark.
"You'll find out how they blamed the Great Recession on Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. "
Federal reserve did admit their fault. Ben Bernanke, who was Chairman of federal reserve admitted it publically, look it up. Nobel winner Milton friedman also explained it in detail how federal reserve caused it.
"It appears he violated his own principle."
Lot of people do that. Including you.
" let the interest cause the housing bubble in 2008."
Do you even know what causes housing bubbles? Tip for you... GOVERNMENT. You probably don't even understand what housing bubble means...
Worse.. What the fuck this all has to do with anything I had said?
It seems that you're incapable to address my points and therefore rely on intellectually dishonest tactics. Attack on strawmen and create multiple different red herrings. As I said already, you lost the battle and the war. As long as you're incapable to provide counter arguments to my actual points, that is how long you will keep losing. You already lost all credibility.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Anarchist kitten
"I agree that direct democracy isn't enough, that's why there's consensus democracy, involving a decision making process of debate and discussion to satisfy as many people as possible, combine this with free associations in case anyone isn't pleased and workers' councils that federalize themselves to have an equal share power thus quasi eliminating power to avoid mob rule and dictatorship and works like a charm."
Okay here is various problems. One is... That doing debates and assemblies takes time and resources. You don't have luxury like that when your country is under attack.
Oh and workers council... Yeah I forgot that... It's the same council that has literally power on everything in system... IT's not anarchist. You simply switch state with worker's council. It's sleight of hand. You will literally end up the same like soviet with this system you're advocating.
"Considering the fact that when Milton Friedman gave an economic plan to Pinochet"
He did not. Pinochet didn't follow friedman's advices. This is well recorded. Simply because he visited there, didn't mean that he was working for them. Also Chile is still richest country in southern america. Also you didn't refute my argument. Sure you can judge that shooting yourself in head is bad idea because you can see consequences on the spot. But there are ways for people to die slowly. Same applies to political and economical systems.
"Ever heard of the police?"
So you think that police can stop army? Good luck with that...
Also... How is this police going to be elected? Oh no elections? Enjoy future police state.
"Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Rocker, Goldman, Berkman, Luxembourg, Pannekoek, Bordiga, Ruhle, Shipway, Dauve,"
When talking about famous... You mention names which pretty much no one has ever heard before.
"Not really, the USSR, China, Eastern Europe were dictatorships from the get-go. Not really an example of turning into a dictatorship."
False. USSR for example was not dictatorship from get-go. It was democratic socialist state. The state did simply increase it's power more and more, until finally it achieved dictatorship. One party system, with one leader. Read it up.
"And you never will because Rojava doesn't have centralized government"
This matters why? As I already explained. It's autonomous. This means it's not even fucking independent. Not only that, but if it were independent, it would be incapable of defending itself.
1
-
+Anarchist Kitty
part 2.
"Markets wouldn't exist in a libertarian socialist society, as we are against them, we instead replace with participatory economics, decentralized planning, or gift economies. "
That's funny because I know "libertarian socialist" who says that libertarian socialist believes in free market. IT seems that you idiots can't even come up with same line of thinking.
Do you even understand what markets are? Plus this doesn't sound like socialism anymore. Sounds more like communism. Why would anyone work in socialist company of yours when they cannot even sell products?
"As for war, the could plan before hand on what do to do"
Yeah... It's not as if there aren't spies of foreign countries having free access to your plans since... you create those plans with "consesus democracy". Idiot.
" as capitalist countries are by nature imperialist,"
Objectively false. This idea of yours is based on your stupidity to even understand what capitalism is. Also soviets and other communist states were imperialist. Already forgot all those satelite states? Or how they tried to conquest Finland after they failed with trying to steal Finland with civil war planted by them.
"Care to elaborate?"
If there is no one preventing people from making their own means of production and then offering wage labor for those who want it. Then your society fails by default. Aka you need government to enforce the law.
Idiot.
" In socialism people own and control the means of production"
no that is capitalism. Where individual people are free to create and buy their own means of productions and decide what ever they want to do with them.
"consensus democracy and the decide how the workplace will run, why would you need a state for that? "
To prevent someone from not making his own means of production? How idiotic can you be?
"I though we were talking about socialism? Why do you keep talking about direct democracy? Not every socialist advocates for direct democracy, I don't know why you're still peddling this. "
Most of them do. And all of them do if they actually understand socialism. And you do as well. Your consensus democracy is actually even worse than direct democracy.
"Elaborate."
Use your brain every now and then. Command structure is too weak to come up with any plan. Since no one has authority it means that people are less willing to do any project which demands lot of time to do. No reason to invent anything new since there is no personal gain from it. In fact you're punished from it. etc..
It's like you're one of those idiots that think that army without general is more effective than army with one.
"That's a retarded comparison. "
IT's comparison based on reality.
"That's like saying slaves were getting payed wages, therefore people working on a wage are slaves."
Slaves in rome did get wages. You do realize that slavery is not free work. Slavery is when you are forced to work against your will.
"What? Why are you even bringing up a comparison? How did that comparison make any sense? How did it refute the statement? What? I don't even...I don't understand."
You don't understand since your IQ is less than 100. Point was obvious. You are promoting system which is incapable of efficient work and cannot react to the fast changes of the world. This is why anarchist are retards.
"Click the link at the bottom of the comment and read the paper I gave you."
Random internet articles from commies isn't proving your point.
" So what? Completely irrelevant to statement."
Not at all if you had brain.
"Because that's the point, there aren't suppose to be executives, it's suppose to be a horizontally managed workplace where everyone can contribute. "
It seems that you are literally so stupid that you fail to comprehend how important executives are for the function of any workforce.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Xavier RodRiguez
Nothing to do with ego, everything to do that I have actually read their book and debated with them several times in my life. Actually that is understatement. Hundreds of thousands of times would be more accurate. Which is why I understand all the different positions they have, and also know exactly what their book tells. Added there I have also read history of Christianity and I'm fully aware what the religion is in it's purest form.
Same applies to socialism and communism. Done this so many times that people like you are simply bugs in comparison. You don't give any intellectual challenge and you don't even know your own belief. Heck most of you haven't even read communists manifesto either.
"Except they government isn't going to take factories, the workers who produced all the profit in said factories will take it and they will run it democratically."
That is capitalism. Not socialism. Because in order for those few workers who work in said factory to own said factory, capitalism is needed. Since then it's their OWN PRIVATE factory.
Socialism abolishes private sector. Hence under socialism workers cannot own the factor. Whole society owns it through public sector. These factors are therefore governed by governmental bodies created through democratic process. Which in the end, ends up giving too much power to these said organizations and will be turned into dictatorships.
See... You don't even understand socialism, yet you advocate it. You would literally be the first person to be killed after socialist revolution.
"And quite frankly the most important part of any business is the workers as the workers are the ones producing the iPhones, farming Sugar, and building the buildings, they deserve a majority of the profit."
no they don't. Company produces them. Workers produce their skill and time to the company. worker's product is their workforce. Just like mercenary soldier's product is to sell his service to highest bidder.
Also they already have majority of the profits. This is what you fail to realize. Company's owner only takes 1% of each workers product value. However when he has lot of workers who produce lot of stuff. That adds up into millions. Small rivers make one big river. Rich people (not all though, like actors for example) have figured that one out, which is why they are rich. They have multiple sources of incomes.
" And if workers can manage themselves, administrative positions are completely unnecessary."
They can't. They lack mental capability, competitive spirit and education to do so. You do realize that managing and leadership demands a lot of talent to be done right? There is a reason why mob rule has never worked out. There is a reason why every country has some sort of political figureheads. That is because mob won't have time to spend to study those issues or even to understand. It's far easier just to vote someone else to do it as a job. Someone who specializes and thinks those things through. You speak out of ignorance since you never even bothered to think how to create your own company and you're most likely some young teen who has no real life experience.
"Its about people taking the means of production out of the hands of the Rich"
Politics of the envy.
"Who sit in office chairs in unnecessary administrative positions stockpiling unfairly earned money"
If it were unnecessary then company's owner wouldn't hire managers. It would be waste of money for them.
"who build everything from iPhones to the Towers and are the most important part of any business"
Anyone can build an iphone. But not everyone can come up with the idea of it. Not everyone can design it. Not everyone make business plan for it. Not everyone can create necessarily contacts to spread the word of it. Not everyone has the spirit to start doing it.
Building iphone is the least important part of that business. Anyone can do it, including a robot. The idea, design, business plan etc all of that are more vital.
Just like in war. Generals is more important than a foot solider. You think army can win with democratic voting of what to do next?
"They can do capitalist stuff and make as much money of off it as long as they are doing it with their own labor, and not the labor of other people E.G. factory workers."
Socialism abolishes capitalism through law. Again... You are actually advocating capitalism without even realizing it. You simply want to have a company where all workers own stocks equally. That is still capitalism. You're not revolutionary in any shape or form. Simply a guy who has no clue what he is talking about.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Xavier Rodriguez
Why is that whenever I debate with socialists, it ends up showing that they don't even understand meaning of most common and basic words...
Definition of dictatorship.
2.Autocratic rule, control, or leadership.
3. A) a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique.
B) A government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated.
Governmental system that you are actually wanting to see. Is literally dictatorship.
"The argument was that the Soviet Union gave people like Stalin too much power."
Soviet started as parliamentary power where people voted. It ended up being dictatorship because too much power was in power of the politicians. Meaning... that people had no way to fight back against politicians since they controlled every aspect of their lives.
"And so would companies if not for anti-trust laws."
There is no benefit in alliance among companies. You rather want to defeat your competitor in order to gain more profit than ally them to gain the same that you always got. Also you're refuting my argument in here. Companies allying with each others don't end up forming dictatorships. Politicians doing that however ends up doing it.
"Explain to me more specifically how it doesn't work"
I look down on you precisely because you can't use your own head. You're one of the most shortsighted people I have ever met... that seems to be common trend among socialist.
The reason why it doesn't specifically work, is because those politicians have so much power in their hand, that they can easily turn the system into dictatorship. Only reason why politicians don't do it here in the west is because of the fear of the people. There are multiple powerful entities outside of political arena making sure that even if politicians ally themselves, the people have means to rebel against government or influence their decision making. Take away private property, and there is no way people can rebel anymore. Since they don't own anything anymore.
To make this more clear to you... You are basically giving your gun, key and address to your apparent to a psychopath and expect that he won't use those to get you.
"The situation isn't black and white, there are many variables to take into account that could've been the cause rather than the system itself. "
Not addressing point at all. Literally all socialists societies started like the system you proposed. They all ended up as dictatorships. We have empirical evidence for this. Socialism is fundamentally flawed system. Concentration of power in one place is too large.
"The parliamentary system is used by many countries and still works fine."
None of those countries are socialists countries. That is why parliamentary system works there. Because politicians don't own the media and means of productions.
" in the hands of a Democratic trade Union or multiple Democratic Trade Unions."
Problem is the concentration of power, not who holds it. You're merely giving the government's power to the unions instead. You are actually making things worse now.
Nordic model is not marxists nor socialists. I'm nordic in case you didn't know, so please stop spreading that bernie propaganda.
"To claim that all socialism will create a dictatorship cannot be proven"
It has been proven already. Literally every socialist country has ended up being dictatorships when given enough time. Scientific method is against you here.
1
-
1
-
+Xavier Rodriguez
"I was not far off, My proposal was an attempt at a de-concentration of power."
You're not De-concentrationing the power when you give it in hands of politicians. You're centralizing it.
Thus enabling them to change the system.
"There are different ways of pointing out people's mistakes than what you are doing, like for instance Constructive Criticism"
People like you think that constructive criticism is being talked down. Do you even understand what talking down to someone means?
"You took that quote out of context. "
No I didn't. You said that it cannot be proven. I stated that we already have multiple empirical evidences of people trying socialism and it always ends up the same.
"You want a decent debate, huh. But you aren't giving one, you just took my statement out of context."
Yet you weren't capable of addressing my point. Instead you try to use silly sophists methods like these to try to hide it.
" the Nordic Model incorporates some socialistic values despite being free market."
There isn't a single socialistic value in nordic model.
"The government will have the same amount of power as it does in western countries such as the U.S."
No they don't. In western countries government doesn't own means of productions and distribution of goods.
"The Unions will be many so concentration of power will be separated into many local Unions, and the government will do it's normal things to keep the Unions in check. "
On what grounds there will be many unions? It would be non-nonsensical, not only that but highly inefficient. Not only that, but they are also owned by government officials. Like they are in many cases.
"There is a difference between private property and personal property."
Yes there is, but how are you going to rebel against government, when you don't own farmlands in order to feed the rebels. When you don't own gun manufactures. You lack resources to rise up against them. That is because you gave the government all needed resources needed to fight back.
Your talking about difference of these two, is not addressing my core argument at all. You're simply trying to derail it. dishonesty... It seems that is all that socialists can do.
1
-
+Xavier Rodriguez
Part 2
"That is why ownership over the means of production will be outside the political arena, and owned by many small democratic Trade Unions."
Okay, then next dictator will be made out of "democratic trade union". I already refuted this line of thinking of yours. you repeating it, doesn't make it true.
"Trade Union becomes needlessly authoritarian the Government and other Trade Unions can come in and keep it in check."
Keep in check by who? That's what they said about government. Yet clearly didn't work out like that in reality. Again, you cannot keep someone in check if you give him enough power.
"You really do have me with the power centralization argument. I will eventually refute it."
This points out that you're incapable of changing your views even though they would be demolished. You are simply trying to insists of finding new way to solve socialism, instead of admitting it's flaws. The whole core idea of socialism is central planning. Socialism is about centralizing the power.
"Actually there is, I could earn alot of money If I partnered up with all my competitors and we created a monopoly"
You don't gain any more money by doing that. Also monopolies don't last forever unless government helps it. The moment new rival appears they will lose. Also there is fundamental misunderstanding that you have over monopolies. Even if you have monopoly on beer for example. And raise the price of a beer to 100000000000000000. IT doesn't help you at all. Since no one will buy that beer. They will buy something else instead. So price has to be always something that people like to pay for. No one pays more for something than they value it for.
And again... Not comparable at all. When you cannot become dictator through that method, unlike in politics.
"The Trade Union would not have this problem, being a democratically run and having the democracy enforced by competing unions there would be multiple Unions you could get product from"
Democracy has never prevented dictatorships from appearing. That is historical fact.
So you get products from multiple unions? That doesn't sound like union anymore. That sounds more like normal company. This would mean that people in other unions, don't own means of production of other union. Therefore it wouldn't be socialism´. You simply changed the word of private company into union.
"if enough people want higher quality product (including the people actually working in the Union's factories) they can vote to have higher product produced."
Doesn't work like that. You have any idea how complex all of this process are in real life? It's too complex to be done through direct voting. It would be mob rule, made by people who don't understand logistics, resource management, planing etc... Basically they are mentally incapable and lack the needed knowledge. You will end up having failed economy.
"A majority of socialist societies that have existed were Marxist-Leninist, Which is just a subset of socialism,"
They created the socialism in the first place.
"we have empirical evidence that Marxist-Leninism will generally end up in a dictatorship, but we don't have enough to determine that all socialism will end up as a dictatorship."
You haven't provided any system that would fix fatal flaws of their system. You in fact have proposed exact same system that they did.
"I proposed multiple systems, But you only refuted the Soviet-esk System."
All of your systems have the same basic flaw. You're simply trying to rename the system and the place where that flaw exists.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+apple pie
"Same was true under slavery, nazism, stalinism,... So what? If that's not a justification for those systems, it is not a justification for capitalism either."
You didn't address your lack of knowledge what wealth is, and you're not refuting my point. Also stalinism is socialism, so was nazism.
So far you haven't provided any better system that is better than capitalism.
"This is just fiction."
It's a fact, reality. Look at those countries and their power structures. Look at how much power their government has over people's lives. Your ignorance is no excuse.
"But capitalism doesn't because when corporations take control over every aspect of people's lives and literally buy elections and write legislation"
There isn't a single instance in history of mankind where any corporation has managed to do what you just told. In fact people have more power under capitalism, since they can choose whom they buy products from. There is no way corporation can force themselves on those people, without government. And socialism is one big corporation. Corporation called as state.
"that's not dictatorship, right? "
you don't even know what that word means. Also you're living in world of conspiracy theories. Yet you think that politicians who are corrupted enough to be bribed... Wouldn't use their power against you when you literally give everything in your society to their hands.
"The richest families who own the corporations and pass the wealth to their children is not feudalism in disguise, it's.... "equality of opportunity"?"
Why is it so bad to secure future of your children? Are you not free to choose how to spend your money and wealth? Is it so wrong to want to spend it on your offspring? You would make a terrible parent. In fact this is in human nature. Desire to protect and provide for your children.
"Nope. It is also perfectly possible to inherit money, take it by force, or, and you will love this one, *borrow the money and then pay it back with other people's work*."
Taking money by force is illegal in every civilized country. There is nothing wrong in inheritance. You do realize that if they aren't competent enough with their wealth then they will eventually run out of it. In fact this is pretty common in 1-2 generations of rich family if children aren't competent.
Borrow money? Yeah that is one option, but you need to actually show promising idea for bank to borrow for your business idea. Also no, you're not paying it back with other people's work. You're actually borrowing the money in order to pay those people to work under you. You have any idea how expensive it's to hire people? 10 people with decent wage already costs half a million in a year. That is when taxes and other costs are ignored.
"That's not answering the question, is it? "
I did answer the question by pointing out that it's irrelevant. Your red herring arguments are idiotic.
"Finally, it is not at all totally different. "
Just because it's not easy to get slaves, it doesn't make it relevant to conversation is capitalism better than socialism.
"But if slaves are replaced by employees, it is perfectly fine *by the same argument*?"
Slaves are forced to work against their will without anything in return.
Employees are doing it on their own free will and get in return what they were agreeing to have.
"“I bought or created the means of production, therefore I have the right to use them in any way I please, including expropriating the wealth created by other people”. "
I never said that you have right to kill people with things you own. And again, that wealth is not created by other people.
"Just because I bought or created something doesn't mean that I have the right to use it to violate the rights of others."
Correct, I never said that one has right to violate rights of others. I still don't see how are you violating someone's rights by owning a mean of production.
It seems that every socialist on this planet is made out of people who's iq is lower than 100.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
+Blackpearl7891
" none actually, social democrats were in power. "
Yes, they were in power.
"Democratic socialist having a small amount, and hitler tricking his gullible allies both conservatives, and social democrats which were within his party, and using fear of commies helped him obtained power. "
He didn't increase power of state before he actually achieved dictatorship. Which wouldn't be possible to achieve without the centralization that democratic socialist helped to create in the first place.
Also fear of commies was rightful. They were terrorizing all over the europe and wanted to spill blood.
What hitler offered was alternative which both conservatives and workers would prefer over.
"No, actually. The term fascist wasn't easily thrown around in 1920, like some stupid liberals or stupid conservatives do. They were viewed as puppets to capitalist, and western power. "
Actually it was as easily thrown around... Read orwell's article about facism. Words is so vague that it can be applied to pretty much anyone who wants any sort of collective power.
"Stalin did not follow Marxs word to the book,"
He did. Everything in communist manifesto was applied by Stalin.
" as Marx had advocated for revolution in industrialized society not a semi feudalistic system"
False. Marx advocated highly centralized government in order to achieve stateless society in future. I doubt you understand this since you haven't read his books. Marx, Engels and both Lenin believed and wrote clearly. That state will naturally "wither away" after everyone are exactly the same. After individuality has been stripped. After families separated and kids brainwashed by the public programs. And after everyone who disagrees being killed.
Since they believed that state is defined by coercion and force. And once everyone agreed with one another, then state would no longer need to exists. Which means there is no need to use force if people naturally do exactly the same.
All three of them including stalin. Believed that this can only be achieved through highly centralized and tyrannical government.
What they all failed to understand due their stupidity. That they will simply end up creating new feudal class when government is highly centralized.
Because they were too stupid to realize that how easily can one or few cunning men take over system like that. They thought that people voting for representatives would naturally prevent this. But that is like giving gun to guy who wants to murder you and expect that he won't kill you with it. Simply put... The amount of power they have, allows them to bypass all so called "safe measures".
"Neither did he follow Lenins for that matter, as Lenin distrusted him and named Trotsky as his successor."
Only thing they disagreed with each others. Was their stance on global domination. Stalin believed more into nationalizing the country. Aka strengthen the soviet Russia instead of trying to conquest the planet. While Trotsky was advocating world domination. All three believed in highly centralized government and got hard on killing people who disagreed with them.
1
-
+Nathan Drake
Nice wall of text. Are you trying to bore me to death by showing your lack of capability to create segments?
"..."Appeal to dictionary is a logical fallacy because dictionary definitions are nothing more than one limited understanding of a word that may or may not reflect a word's current usage and conflict with other understandings. "
There is no such fallacy. First of all, dictionaries are used to describe what words means. Your definition of the word is not based on anything but your own personal opinion. Dictionaries are how people as collective define them. IT doesn't matter if you call it limited when the fact states... That even the limited version is total opposite of what you had said.
"Learn it well young padawan."
star wars fan... No wonder you're braindead.
". If Stalin was a Marxist he wasn't a very good one. "
Followed marx manifesto by the book.
" He admitted that the Soviet Union still had commodity production in "Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR" whilst claiming that it had achieved socialism."
So according to your idiotic definition. Socialism cannot have problems?
"Read it again "
I did and I think I already posted here exactly what marx claimed to socialist state to be, which seeks to become communists.
"I said that they weren't *communism*, not that they aren't Marxism (which they aren't either)."
You do realize that all marxist are communists?
" Marxism, again, is the method of socio-economic analysis formulated by Marx. "
literally stated by no source on the planet. Not a single dictionary or enclypedia. Only you.
"Communism, in Marxist theory, is the stage in society after capitalism in which means of production are commonly owned and the state and class hierarchy are abolished. "
And marxism is about how to reach that state.
"Neither a progressive income tax or the abolition of child labor are descriptions of communism or Marxism. "
no you idiot... They are descriptions of socialist society that is gradually suppose to become communists. Read the manifesto. Nice strawman btw.
"Again, it's not a description of communism"
I never made such claim.
"LOL wtf are you getting this from? "
From his manifesto. Where he literally states that he will abolish family.
"First of all when talks about "abolishing the family" he's talking specifically about the bourgeoisie nuclear family and socio-economic aspects surrounding it. "
Nope. According to him, what we consider as family. Is bourgeoise creation. He stated that proletarians DON'T HAVE FAMILIES and that is because they don't have time to be with their family, teach them or have anything to give them as inheritance. He even stated that parents should have no right to teach their kids, but should be done by collective.
IT was all about children being continuity of their parents. This is what he wanted to abolish. Therefore this can be only achieved by separating child from parents. There is a reason why this happened in soviets. The reason is exactly what I stated.
"Lenin did all of those things, not Stalin "
Stalin did as well. As I said, their only problem among themselves was foreign politics.
"hat would be silly, because it wasn't written for the USSR."
It doesn't need to be written for USSR in order to be followed by USSR.
"It's a paraphrase of one of the most moronic things Jordan Peterson has said"
How is it moronic thing to point out that you're not perfect being and most likely you would commit same actions as all the other communists and socialist before you?
We have history acting as our evidence. You have what? Your ego.
"Last time I checked the dude is a shitty evo-psych professor,"
You do realize that you can spend your free time studying other stuff? He was always interested in psychology and mind of dictators and what lead people to wanting to have them. He was far better view of human mind than you have. In fact this is common among psych students and professsors. They all are interested in learning the minds of those who are most twisted and fucked up.
So studying history of those people is part of it.
"not a political scientist or philosopher."
And marx wasn't economists. Nor political scientists nor philosopher. He was a lawyer by his education. May I add... Lawyer from time when people had harder time to access to information than now. Not only that, but he never did any work. So from these grounds... According to your own stantards. Marx had no clue what he was talking about. Neither Lenin or stalin or Engels.
". I guarantee you that anyone in the latter two fields will tell you that he has no idea what he is talking about. ""
That's funny because I know people from those fields. And they all agree with me.
""Which isn't what Bill C 16 says at all. It merely extends anti-discrimination protections to trans people. It doesn't say that you will go to jail for misgendering someone.""
False. You fail to understand symbolism since you're literally incapable of thinking in abstracts. Which is typical of socialist. First of all.. Trans people didn't even want it. It was advocated by small minority of college students with mental issues. Also it does jail you for misgendering someone. What would be point of law if there is no punishment? Fucking idiot.
You fail to understand. That now it's literally legal and acceptable to ban ANY SPEECH in canada. Oh wait... I'm talking with an idiot who doesn't understand history or political science.
"I guarantee you that they wouldn't because I watch a lot of socialist youtubers online."
So socialist youtubers are bigger authority than actual political scientists and philosophers? And dictionaries, historians and enclypedias. Wow...
Then you give link to one of the biggest clown in youtube. Guy who literally praises mass murders of soviet union.
1
-
1
-
1