Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Debunked: "Socialism Has Never Worked"" video.
-
56
-
17
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
+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
-
+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
-
+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
-
+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
-
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
-
+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
-
+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
-
+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
-
+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