Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "David Pakman Show"
channel.
-
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