General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Hobbs
Intercollegiate Studies Institute
comments

Comments by "Hobbs" (@hobbso8508) on "Socialism or Capitalism? Arthur Brooks and Richard Wolff Debate" video.

 @jessensloan6692 Like human rights. They really struggle with those.
6
Dude slaps, it's great to see. Brooks on the other hand thinks we can take a system that directly promotes greed and can somehow make it moral. Loonatic.
4
 @ExPwner Then why do companies have employees?
4
 @willnitschke Right, like Mexico...oh no wait...El Salvadore...no not that one....Guatemala? Honduras? Russia? India? Stop me when I get to the socialist ones.
4
By giving them part ownership in the companies they work for. You should try watching the debate.
4
 @willnitschke As in socialism. Did you not watch the debate?
4
@willnitschke Nah, you just don't understand the conversation again. You continue to confuse common ownership for private.
4
@РусланИванов-д4я2м What measures specifically?
4
@ExPwner You have a playlist of your own ignorance. Your screenshots show as much. Keep coping. So again, name the lie, starting with this conversation.
4
 @ExPwner Because it's true James. And again, name the lie in this thread. Why do you feel the need to distract from the points being made?
4
@ExPwner Your logic is circular.
4
@ExPwner The crashes were caused by capitalism kid. Governments around the world softened the blows of multiple market crashes. Tulip Mania is a perfect example of a capitalist market crashing all on its own. Government gave us the 40 hour work week. You know that, it was in the New Deal.
4
@willnitschke The societies you are referring to did not have the same access to technology and financial backing to support said technology as the global superpowers. By your logic we can point to capitalist states in poorer countries and show them as examples of capitalism not improving anything relative to other countries, meaning it's the technology and access to said technology.
3
@willnitschke So what you're saying is you support authoritarianism and the exploitation of labour over democracy and people owning the fruits of what they produce.
3
@willnitschke "Common ownership .... =socialism" Fixed, thanks Will. "private ownership is capitalism" Correct. Now we just have to define state, which is public ownership. See, simple. I strongly suggest reading through Private, Public, and Common Ownership by Markus Haller. It should fill in the blanks for you.
3
But profit isn't a requirement. It is after all expenses and expenditures. It could be literally zero and it would make no difference.
3
@MckensyLong "To convert that to household income... you're saying there's no difference if a family makes $60,000 a year and spends $60,000 a year to live. Or if the family makes $100,000 a year to live and only spends $60,000 a year to live. " No. Companies are not like families. "Sure, family #2 could then start spending $100,000 a year to increase their lifestyle (making the profit 0) but that is why so many families (and businesses) fail because they have no savings." Why not just pay your staff when they made you? "Thanks for the $100K, cya chumps" isn't the most ethical framework now is it. "Isn't that the same for businesses?" By this logic every single non-profit organisation would fail.
3
@MckensyLong Non-profit means they don't turn a profit. Personal profit is bit the same as business profit.
3
@MckensyLong Nah. It takes away the ability to get rich off others work.
3
@MckensyLong No, they can't make a profit. No owner's draws, no dividends. All revenue must roll over and eventually become either expenses or expenditures.
3
It's sad watching Brooks flail the way he does. Guy ended up arguing in favour of worker cooperatives as well by the end.
3
@natedagreat19 Will is so disconnected from reality he thinks that that doctors and engineers getting paid a lot is a good argument for why minimum wage workers aren't really getting screwed. Lol.
3
It's like he's slowly rediscovering socialism but trying to call it something else to avoid the ideological contradiction in his head.
3
Government freed slaves, not capitalists. The British government bought all the slaves to free them, a price tag so high no company could have ever achieved it and was only paid off a few years ago. In the US they straight up went to war over it. Capitalists were the slave owners, not the emancipators
3
 @ExPwner Capitalism helps capitalists. It has always stood on the poor. Socialism is the reason those at the bottom have healthcare, food and housing these days.
3
 @ExPwner Imagine thinking government banning monopolies is somehow responsible for them creating them.
3
 @willnitschke "Just Google it" It's even funnier because you're wrong. What's also funny is even if you were right, you are still wrong about your original claim.
3
Wolff isn't against free markets or businesses making profits, he just wants employers to share in those profits. Nothing you said about Wolff is anything to do with his position.
3
 @ExPwner Name the lie.
3
 @ExPwner Your declaration that something is a lie is not proof. Also, while I have you, what contract do parents sign to become parents?
3
You can't convince zealots. Will is exhibit A it would seem.
3
@willnitschke he Fed reacting before the crash to mitigate the losses is them doing their jobs. Without them the crashes would be worse, not better. Here: The Fed recognises that market speculation is getting out of control. The Fed tries to cool the speculation market so less people speculate. The inevitable happens and the market crashes, like all speculative bubble markets do. The crash is less bad as there was less speculation when it crashed than there would have otherwise been. See? The Fed doing their job is a good thing Will. Obviously I'm over your head here, but try to keep up.
3
@ExPwner Tulip mania was market speculation from private individuals. It was 100% capitalism. Thanks to unions, then government. The crashes would have been worse without the Fed, that's a fact.
3
@willnitschke Creating wealth is worthless if it doesn't get distributed. Recent decades have seen a stagnation for those at the bottom. Capitalism has done nothing to change that, and has in fact exacerbated it.
3
 @willnitschke Prwtty sure it's known as a non-argument, but that's not exactly shocking given your track record.
3
 @willnitschke More failure to address the point. Silly troll.
3
 @willnitschke Reetam's. You just swept it aside and made up some nonsense about it being worse without addressing anything said.
3
 @ExPwner That's exactly what it means. Believing otherwise is pathetic.
3
 @willnitschke Your ignorance of a concept is not the standard.
3
1. The person who authorised the illegal decision would be culpable. 2. Profit is after expenses and expenditures, not before. Since ownership is collective individuals don't cash out, either everyone does or nobody does. 3. You don't vote for every decision, you vote in leaders who then make decisions. 4. Companies have lawyers for all sorts of legal purposes. This would be no different.
3
 @willnitschke Like?
2
Utterly shameful tactics to avoid answering anything.
2
If everyone is a part owner then they all have the same interest.
2
@willnitschke Why do you lie like that Will? The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives. Mondragon cooperatives operate in accordance with the Statement on the Co-operative Identity maintained by the International Co-operative Alliance. Why do you need me to tell you this again? Do you just hate the fact that a legitimate example exists? Also funny you talk about salaries. Cooperatives pay people salaries, so not exactly shocking that they have salaried employees. Land O'Lakes is mostly made up of family owned farms, so workers who own their own means of production. Farms like that rarely hire anyone at all. Maybe learn how worker cooperatives work though. By yourogic nobody owns them. That's nonsensical.
2
Tell me about it. Even the solutions he proposes are right out of current socialism. It's hilarious.
2
Nobody is saying it would be a direct democracy. Imagine a company where the CEO or board of directors are beholden to their employees.
2
@mikevanover1721 Who said it doesn't work? Poverty is DOWN because of programs like this. That's the whole point of them.
2
@willnitschke That makes literally no sense. Crony capitalism is controlled by capitalists using their vast wealth and influence to cause corruption in the political system. It is literally private owners of capital doing it. How is that in any way socialism? Governments broke up all the monopolies. You're welcome.
2
@ExPwner Sources of what? It's not my fault you don't understand that companies having too much power is a problem. Just because it isn't your prefered version of capitalism doesn't suddenly make it something other than a form of capitalism.
2
 @willnitschke Is this what happens when you run out of dumb claims and have to resort to straight up grade F trolling?
2
@ExPwner Nah, you're a liar. You just don't understand what a government is. You want to treat it like a corporation because you wish it was one.
2
 @ExPwner The capitalists already stole it dummy.
2
 @ExPwner Investment isn't production. This also means that business that don't require capital investment are, according to you, perfectly valid examples of workers having their labour stolen.
2
 @ExPwner Hey look, a zealot who can't handle facts.
2
 @willnitschke If you think capitalism is when workers own their own means of production then fine, let's just do that. Call it whatever you want.
2
@MckensyLong The American dream is a lie.
2
@MckensyLong I'm not a capitalists, I don't own a business, so a bit of an odd comparison, but on a certain level I agree with you. Really thought you had something there didn't yah. Maybe I'm not a selfish cunt and think that my income should be subject to the human rights of others. Amazing I know.
2
@ExPwner I'm sure in imaginary land you can spawn profits from thin air, but in the real world companies have employees for a reason.
2
 @willnitschke God you sound butthurt.
2
 @ExPwner Lol, you're joking right? Nothing about ancap keeps corporations accountable.
2
@ExPwner So wait....wait wait wait. According to you, government is the reason we have corporations? I mean, I agree that government created a safe social framework for businesses to exist in, but hearing you admit that is just icing on the cake. Glad you bought a $50 book so you can agree with me. Can you say scammed?
2
@ExPwner So you agree that capitalism doesn't hold corporations accountable, and therefore want to end corporations. So how do they hold businesses accountable? You claimed that labour exploitation doesn't exist.
2
 @ExPwner Corporations are capitalist. So again, if you don't believe in corporations, how do you keep businesses accountable?
2
@ExPwner Got it, so after admitting you can't hold corporations accountablez you now admit you can't hold businesses accountable. Because "arbitration" is government sweetheart, so is law enforcement.
2
 @willnitschke You sound very angry.
2
@willnitschke Technology created the prosperity for the end of slavery, which was ended by government. You can think of low income workers in capitalism as a slave class. Under socialism everyone would have their human needs met.
2
@willnitschke Correlation is not causation, so your claim is wrong, as per your logic. Yes, low income workers are far closer to slaves than you think. Constantly balancing income with expenses, a single expense away from losing their homes and zero ability to negotiate their pay. Socialist policies are currently the ones keeping people fed. There is nothing capitalist about government programs.
2
@ExPwner So people living paycheque to paycheque in generational poverty in a nation with low social mobility are better off without the food stamps and other socialist welfare programs used to feed, clothe and house their families? Makes perfect sense. Work or die, the American dream. Let me know when you have something of value to say.
2
@ExPwner Hating poor people isn't an argument either. As rich as some people are, wages have been stagnant for those at the bottom for decades.
2
The most socialist countries in the world are in the west.
2
@austincooper5336 Some people are so brainwashed by propaganda that nothing aside from actually living somewhere would convince them. I knew some US air force people stationed in the UK growing up. She was pregnant and would always go to the on-base military provided healthcare facilities for checkups. It wasn't until she went into labour that she was forced to use a British hospital. Apparently they spend the better part of a 3 days worrying about the cost, and even stopped at the desk on the way out to inquire about the bill. It took over a year and an actual forced hospital visit before they understood that the visit would be free.
2
Why are you assuming socialism can't have free markets and incentives? Did you not watch the debate?
2
@willnitschke "Well you're the one claiming there are no incentives, much less therefore markets." No. "In another comment you wrote in your system there aren't even bosses, remember?" And? "People don't even have to show up to work, and they will still get paid." No. "Your fantasy world sounds wonderful. It's just like a colourful cartoon." Strawmen and ignorance.
2
 @willnitschke Just calling yourself out now. Try responding to the points made.
2
 @willnitschke The points are you ignorance of free markets and how instead of addressing the point you just strawmanned
2
 @willnitschke You would know this if you went back and looked.
2
 @willnitschke He's being honest, he called it capitalism.
2
 @willnitschke Why do you assume everyone else is a liar? Is it because facts hurt your brain?
2
 @willnitschke Have you always been this stupid? Again, it's crony capitalism. The capital is owned privately.
2
@ExPwner I'm not the one crying that a bunch of capitalists using their influence to effect change on a nation are actually socialists. You just sound silly.
2
 @willnitschke Ah yes, the all powerful...cooperative ownership of the means of production. Not sure you understand what that means again.
2
 @willnitschke Translation: Will is confused by his own claims.
2
Wolff advocates for market socialism, which is about giving workers ownership inside the companies that employ them. Nothing about that is a planned economy.
2
Lol what?
2
 @willnitschke They are not the same. Nonprofit organisation cannot profit, but they can make a surplus. Shane is correct on the difference.
2
That's not democracy.
2
@franekspeak953 I don't choose who I vote for under threat of starving if I obstain. There are also plenty of example of people applying to hundreds of jobs and only getting a single offer, then taking it. Comparing this clearly disproportionately weighted system to a democracy is a joke. Yes, democracies give the people power to decide who represents them. Businesses without democracy do not give people that. Worker cooperatives already exist, and work using this exact premise.
2
 @ExPwner Says the guy that thinks healthcare is a privilege 🙄
2
@willnitschke Nope. We've been over this Will, the community does not have to use government to own the means of production. Anarchistic socialism is a thing.
2
 @willnitschke Okay boomer.
2
 @willnitschke Nothing you said makes any sense. Try harder.
2
It's a testament to the sheer inequality of capitalism that all the systems currently in place to improve equality and give people basic human rights are working in direct conflict of capitalism. Every single government aid program or workers rights initiative has at some point been actively attacked by capitalists, all the way back to the New Deal critics consisting of GM, Sun Oil, Montgomery Ward, and a range of other corporate puppets under the likes of the du Pont family, the Koch brothers and a host of others.
2
Well exactly. Makes perfect sense when you stop and think for more than 10 seconds.
2
@willnitschke Definitely not helped by Trump. He added 8 trillion to the national debt, drove the deficit higher than ever, and gave massive tax breaks without reducing spending. If any of them had a spine, instead of rate increases we would see higher corporate and high income taxes, the closing of tax loopholes, and more progressive tax systems.
2
@ExPwner Lol, no. There is nothing revolutionary about a 37% highest tax, especially one that is only 2% higher than the 35% rate for anyone earning over $200Kish. You're just lying. Denmark has a top tax of over 50%, as does Sweden. They also guarantee healthcare, which is just a tax on the middle class in the US. You also ignore the capital gains tax rate, which allows the rich to pay a lower effective tax rate, making the progressive tax system decidedly less progressive.
2
@willnitschke Nobody thinks that Will. Corporate taxes are on profits, meaning they are paid after expenses. How could you not know that? Instead the likes of Apple can pay using the over $100 billion in profits they made. And don't lie about taxes on profits being passed to consumers. Since taxes are after expenses there is nothing to pass down. They already paid for everything before tax. Executive Officers would however pay more tax if the capital gains was changed. But keep going with your strawman and illogical nonsense.
2
So food stamps are evil, but Amazon making their employees wear diapers is totally cool.
2
 @ExPwner Actually they did do that. Today you learned 🎉 In fact government had to come in and enforce bathroom break laws to stop workers being forced to skip breaks.
2
@ExPwner It certainty necessitated it. Check the reports. Or are you denying that Amazon illegally pressured workers out of their government mandated breaks, requiring government intervention?
2
 @ExPwner Oh I'm sorry, it was pissing in bottles, not nappies. My mistake. If that's your grand argument as to why it's totally different then just give up now James.
2
 @willnitschke Well exactly, like what?
1
 @willnitschke Yes, such as?
1
Lol, here he is proving your point, his boyfriend even came to support him.
1
@ExPwner I love how salty you are now. You're wrong about all of those and I've proven it a dozen times over.
1
 @ExPwner Aww, James is sad people don't like his strawman. Tell me James, is market socialism really socialism? Or do you think Richard Wolff isn't a socialist?
1
@ExPwner So you avoid the question because you can't answer. Again, is market socialism really socialism? Or do you think Richard Wolff isn't a socialist?
1
 @ExPwner I reject your rejection. We can do this all week.
1
@ExPwner You don't get to say that I don't get to.
1
@ExPwner But I've fulfilled it. Again, market socialism proves your definition wrong.
1
 @ExPwner Again, market socialism doesn't fit your definition, meaning you are wrong. Calling it the "actual" definition doesn't make it correct.
1
 @willnitschke Typical zealot. When faced with an obvious contradiction, you ignore it.
1
 @ExPwner How?
1
 @ExPwner Yes it does. Market socialism has nothing to do with government or state control.
1
 @ExPwner Yeah, it does, or are we switching definitions depending on mood now?
1
@ExPwner You also didn't give the full definition now did you? Let's take a look: "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" So, not all governments, just the ones that match the various egalitarian movements.
1
@ExPwner Sorry to rely on them finally fixing their definition. It doesn't call the theory egalitarian, it says that socialism is various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. According to this definition all of the socialist theories and movements are based on egalitarianism.
1
@ExPwner Right, it says they govern using a system based on egalitarianism. Why are you ignoring parts of the definition?
1
 @ExPwner Because that's what the definition says. We are using dictionary definitions aren't we?
1
 @willnitschke That's actually the opposite of egalitarianism. You really aren't too bright are you.
1
@ExPwner I'm just following the definition. According to that, if you don't implement egalitarianism then you didn't implement socialism. Even if you were trying to be socialist, it obviously isn't socialism, per the definition. You can't possibly be trying to claim that a government advocating for egalitarianism would fail to implement a single egalitarian policy, so that must still be socialism. If they implement no policies then they are not advocated. It's that simple. Or do works mean something different when you're cherry-picking?
1
@ExPwner It's right there in plain English James. Are you going to continue to argue that the Nazis were socialists, even though there is obviously nothing egalitarian about it?
1
 @ExPwner That doesn't fit the ddefinition.
1
 @willnitschke Did they though? Do you know what that word means? Hard to be egalitarian while genociding people.
1
@ExPwner It very clearly doesn't. Nazism is not an egalitarian political theory.
1
 @willnitschke So not egalitarian. Just making sure of that.
1
 @ExPwner Yeah it does. Here, let's look at the definition again: "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements" Seems pretty cut and dry.
1
@willnitschke Right, which is why I posted the definition. You forget your reading glasses there Will?
1
 @willnitschke Sounds like you just don't know what egalitarianism is, given the fact you tried to argue Nazi Germany was egalitarian lol.
1
@ExPwner But not egalitarian. The issue of only using half a definition. Also, they privatised.
1
@ExPwner "which is irrelevant because the part about government ownership is not dependent upon the theory." Yes it is. Let's read it again. "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" So it isn't even the government ownership or collective itself, but the egalitarian theories and movements that advocate for that. According to this defintion collectivism and governmental ownership are nothing to do with socialism. Socailism is egalitarian economic and political theories or movements that ADVOCATE for collective or government ownership and administration. "They did not privatize." But they did. They sold off government assets. Not the markets are directed, but the ownership of the individual companies was private. That private ownership continued after the war. That's a fact. So no, you debunked nothing. In fact TIK took a source that openly stated that the Nazis privatized their economy and edited it. The term was literally first used to describe the Nazi German economy.
1
@ExPwner I literally posted the definition kid.
1
@ExPwner 3 lies from you. Yes, privatised was written first about Nazi Germany. Yes, the Nazis privatised. Yes, the definition does not mean what you are claiming. Not sure how you think advocating means government control.
1
@ExPwner Because it proved nothing of the sort. In fact the videos he responds to prove him wrong so fucking hard it's a joke. Still waiting for you to explain how the Nazis were holding egalitarian economic and political theories...while advocating for literal genocide.
1
 @ExPwner Sure he does James. This is just sad. You can't even get the definition of socialism straight, and even the dictionary disagrees with you now.
1
 @ExPwner Deflecting won't help you.
1
@ExPwner The primary sources that openly disagree with your conclusions and need to be modified just to claim you are correct? Those sources?
1
@willnitschke We have a very different idea of "held accountable" it would seem. Plenty of capitalists exploit workers and do some really shady health and environmental shit. The only ones holding them accountable are government.
1
 @willnitschke More nonsense. Government holds businesses accountable. Voters hold government accountable. It's very simple really.
1
 @willnitschke Of course it makes them accountable, that's literally the point of it. Judges are employed by the state. So thanks.
1
 @willnitschke Total nonsense. We need to provide human rights for people and stop the exploitation of labour.
1
@willnitschke not understanding how democracy works just makes you look thick.
1
@ExPwner Wow, wrong twice, I'm shocked.
1
 @ExPwner You're right, rule 1 James is wrong. I forget.
1
 @willnitschke Oh look, the alt is coming in to say something stupid. Let me know why you hate human rights. Let me know when you research the democracy index.
1
@willnitschke Oof, you still don't know what taxes are. This is making you look stupid.
1
@ExPwner Aww, look a James, hiding behind big Willy. You gonna hold his pocket for good luck.
1
@willnitschke You can just admit to not know the underlying social understanding of taxation. It's amusing that Jimmy thinks that your profession would help you to understand the societal reasoning behind taxes, when in reality it just tells you how to pay them. It's like asking a guy on a piling rig how the piles are designed and expecting a solid answer. The reality of it is that your inability to support human rights, and your constant admissions on your lack of understanding of the necessity of government programs, shows that you do not in fact understand how taxes work. Can you pay them? Sure. Do you understand them? Not in a million years. Stick to drilling Will, design ain't for you.
1
@willnitschke Why do you imagine you speak for everyone? Delusions of grandure?
1
@willnitschke Wow, you really are just James projecting your abject failures aren't you. I reject your premise. Loaded questions aren't valid. You fail.
1
 @willnitschke I reject your new premise. Loaded questions are still not valid. You fail again.
1
@ExPwner Ah yes, the CPA that thinks taxes are theft. Very solid source you have there. Catch a grip James, you're a fool.
1
@willnitschke "As a side note the problem with welfare tends to grow over time, and it has the negative consequence of disincentivizing members of the community to contribute goods and services." This is total nonsense. Housing first programs in Finland have already shown that giving people unconditional housing leads to better outcomes than constantly requiring something from them. There was also an experiment done recently where they straight up gave money to the homeless in California in $500 installments over 6 months rather than trying to provide for them. It was a massive success, with two thirds of the participants finding housing. The truth is that you think of poor people as "lesser" and always will. That's why your ideas fail, and you don't even consider it a bad thing when they fail. You don't view them as worthy of human rights, and don't give a toss if they are disgarded by society. Afterall, they're just laggards and criminials, so who cares. What's a little slave labour from the criminals of society, am I right? Hating the poor isn't productive Will, it just allows you to put your blinders on and ignore poverty because it doesn't effect you personally.
1
@willnitschke Banks were welcome to choose their own interest rates. Their poor investments and the change of the rules in 2020 under Trump that allows them to invest 100% of their deposits with no backup is their own fault.
1
@ExPwner Fed rates are minimums champ. Anyone can set a higher rate. Want to guarantee lower risk on mortgages? Set higher rates. Duh.
1
@willnitschke So you're blaming the free market for bank failures? The free market after all decides the rate a bank can survive on right? You do realise that with no lower bound set by the Fed it would be a race to the bottom right? Of course you realise it, you just said it. So thanks for confirming that banks need to be stopped from taking really dumb risks.
1
@willnitschke You can intend it however you want. According to you banks cannot charge higher interest rates due to competition. This puts them at a higher risk for their loans. When the Fed raises rates they can give out loans with a lower risk. If the Fed doesn't set a minimum then banks are in a race to the bottom, and some will bet too low and fail as a result. It's not hard to figure out Will.
1
@willnitschke If the interest rate is higher then the risk to the bank is lower you utter buffoon. You're saying I'm wrong then agreeing with me lol. If competition forces them to offer lower rates then the risk to the bank is higher. You are confusing the risk to the bank with the risk of the borrower.
1
@ExPwner "Getting cheaper Fed money" That's not how that works. Again, banks lend from deposits. 1. Yes, higher. I just said that. They can lend higher. Thank you for coming full circle. 2. It isn't. Any more questions, because you seem very confused on how the Fed works.
1
@ExPwner I do, you do not.
1
@willnitschke Watching you continue to not understand how loans work is actually just funny. Again, continuing to argue about competition just proves my point, the Fed minimum rate saves banks from betting too low and failing as a result. And you seem to have misunderstood how down-payments work as well. Honestly, this is not a good loon for you.
1
@willnitschke Oops, did you figure out your mistake. Probably not, but we can dream. If I increase interest rates without any change in risk am I making more or less profit for more or less risk?
1
@willnitschke Again, you are just proving that competition drives banks to overly risky loans, and the Fed is the only thing stopping them from eating eachother. In your effort to prove your point you just agreed with me.
1
 @ExPwner But they aren't artificially low. The Fed sets a minimum, anyone can set a higher rate.
1
 @willnitschke Again, the Fed rate is a minimum. If it didn't exist then banks would be racing to the bottom, with even lower rates. You're arguing against yourself.
1
@willnitschke Again, you're proving me right. The Fed is a minimum rate, without that minimum rates would only be lower, not higher. You really don't get how the Fed works though. Banks don't compete against the Fed rate. That's not how it works at all.
1
 @willnitschke So you admit that the Fed sets a lower bound, not an upper bound. Thanks for proving me right.
1
 @willnitschke Lower number, not a required number. You openly stated that banks loan out at a higher rate than the Fed rate, so why lie and claim they force banks to loan at their rate?
1
@willnitschke Oh good, so you agree with me. Banks don't borrow to make loans, they use deposited funds. That's how banks work. Is this the issue, you think banks work differently to how they actually work?
1
 @willnitschke From the Fed dumb dumb. You're just agreeing with me again.
1
@willnitschke You claimed that banks are restrained by their borrowing costs due to the Fed rates. Fed rates do not effect banks borrowing costs as banks lend against depositor savings accounts, meaning they do not pay depositors the Fed rate. This means your entire argument makes no sense, meaning your reply agrees with me.
1
@willnitschke Again, the existence of competition just proves that without the Fed interest rates would be a far more dangerous race to the bottom. Because people need regular access to their money, which they can't get in a money market fund. Banks do not offer good interest rates on savings, and are regularly below Fed, but still manage to get people's deposits because of access. The more you know.
1
 @willnitschke Take it out and put it where Will?
1
 @willnitschke If I take my money out of a money market with the click of an app, where does the money go?
1
@willnitschke Your bank account...in a bank...are you hearing yourself?
1
@willnitschke Looks like you got confused again. First you claim people don't really keep money in banks, then you openly state that you regularly transfer money to banks for personal use. Now you just can't read at all.
1
Well exactly. Advocates for increased capitalism, a more laissez-faire approach, inevitably end up arguing in favour of more corporate power to exploit people, ruin the environment, use their funds to influence public policy both directly and indirectly, and much much more. It's hard to take someone seriously when they claim moral superiority while advocating for corporation power, and advocate against basic human rights like food, shelter and healthcare.
1
 @ExPwner Are you feeling okay?
1
@willnitschke Human rights are the opposite of all of those lol. How ignorant can you be Will?
1
 @ExPwner It's not slavery James, you just hate the idea of people coming together to make something better than any individual.
1
 @willnitschke I already explained how you were wrong.
1
@ExPwner So the person claiming that human rights are not really human rights is here to tell me what slavery is? Okay champ.
1
@willnitschke I agree. Good job I'm not advocating that isn't it Will
1
 @ExPwner The fact that it isn't slavery makes it not slavery. Here, let me put it this way. Is sales tax slavery too? Do you differentiate the sort of tax, or is it just all tax?
1
@ExPwner Nah, it's not. Aside from the societal consent, there is also the fact they already took from the system. Refusing to pay into a system while receiving all the benefits is just selfishness.
1
@ExPwner Awww, selfish James wants to have his cake and eat it. This is the sad part about ancaps. They want society to cater to them, then whine when asked to help out.
1
@ExPwner You're sounding more and more like Will. You always were a bit of a sponge when it comes to usage of language. Always nice when you call someone looking to contribute to a society, to do their part, a whiny child. It really puts into perspective the views of people who winge like little babies over helping to maintain society's schools, roads, legal systems and more. 😂😂😂😂😂
1
 @ExPwner So nothing from you again. Is being pathetic your raison d'etre or do you just do it when you get called put?
1
@ExPwner I need to back up the idea that regulating a market less leads to the market doing things that the current market is banned from doing, and that the former market used to do? It's not rocket science. Corporation are out to make money. Tell them it's illegal to dump metals and chemicals in a river that supplies drinking water and they won't do it. Don't ban them from doing that and they'll do it to make money.
1
 @ExPwner Nah, that's reality.
1
@willnitschke Right, like workers rights, environmental protections...you know the stuff that actually helps people. You would rather a bunch of regulations that stop businesses from stealing from getting kickbacks, and literally nothing else.
1
 @willnitschke Total rubbish. Regulations increase worker rights and environmental protections. Just look at CFCs.
1
 @ExPwner Oh dear, lying James is lying again.
1
@willnitschke Except more money doesn't necessarily mean more for the environment. If you have to cut corners like not creating regulation that stops a coal mine dumping into drinking water then you are trying to make more money just to use it to clean up the mess you made trying to make more money. It's just stupidity. Does reality confuse you?
1
@immortalnightbody Target practice.
1
 @ExPwner Yes yes, James the liar is pointing the finger.
1
@shgalagalaa What individual freedoms are restricted when people have their human rights met? Surely a society where some go without food, shelter and healthcare is far less free overall.
1
@shgalagalaa "I love how you are completely unable to engage a topic without sounding like the most biased individual ever. Your very first sentence implies that people can only have their human rights met under socialism which is a hilariously bad take." No, it implies that socialism guarantees human rights, while capitalism does not. Nothing about capitalism guarantees human rights, and in fact any capitalist system that does is usually doing it by other means. Now, could a capitalist nation meet the human rights of all of its citizenry? Sure, for example Finland. But these days nations tend to do that by implementing some form of socialism. Housing first initiatives, food stamps, TANF, energy bill assistance and a whole host of other government initiatives paid for by tax dollars to help those at the bottom and provide them with human rights. Programs which have long been attacked by businesses and complained about by politicians funded by said businesses. "Regardless. If one is to be the owner of their own body they must be free to do with their body as they please and be entitled to the fruits of their labour aswell as spend it as you see fit." This is besides the point. Being free to do as you please is all well and good, right up until you have a need that cannot be paid for. Would you argue that someone with a disability that renders them unable to work is "free" as they can "be the owner of their own body"? In a capitalist system that which cannot be paid for is simply impossible to gain. Want to pay rent and buy food? Too bad, you don't make enough money, time to pick one. It's also odd you talk about being entitled to the fruits of your own labour, but capitalists remove a portion of those fruits for their own gain, that is in fact the entire basis of capitalism. Now here is the real kicker, is your right to keep some portion of your income, income that was made possible by the many government systems put in place to guarantee the infrastructure and legal protection for the business you work at to survive, greater than the rights of people needing food, housing and healthcare? Should people die from preventable diseases just so you can avoid taxes? "That is someone who is more productive will be forced to give up what they deserve due to to their higher productivity to someone who has a lower productivity." That does depend on the type of socialism and the sort of system you are critiquing. Market socialism for example would have the same free market and same payment systems as current capitalist companies, however the leadership of the company is elected by the employee members, and the ownership of the company is evenly distributed among said employee-memebers, meaning any dividends are paid to all workers and any leadership decisions are subject to a the will of the people lest the leadership are removed due to the unpopular decisions. As such, people can still be fired, including leadership. On a more national scale you are talking about welfare, but welfare systems are not paid for by people who will have reduced freedom from the payment. You don't lose out on buying food to pay your taxes, because taxes are graduated to allow those at the bottom to get the help they need. Instead, tax dollars are taken from those that can afford it based on their income. "Also not having capital markets restricts individuals from spending what they earn as they see fit given that all means of production have to be owned collectively for it to be socialism." Again, not in market socialiam. Free markets still exist, the companies are just cooperatives. They are collectively owned by their own employees. In fact, as Will likes to point out, most companies are owner-operated and therefore would not change at all under a system like this. "Socialism by definition revolves around restricting what people can do with their money aswell as stopping them from earning according to their productivity. This is the core of socialist beliefs and the above sacrifices are admissable as the benefits are perceived far larger in magnitude." I mean, it sounds like you need an education on market socialism. Your entire argument revolves around government ownership and planned economies. Market socialism has neither. In fact, market socialism rewards workers more, not less, allowing them to keep more of what they earned, without a company removing their labour to turn a profit or add to a market cap that they have no control or
1
@willnitschke You're confusing being free FROM things with being free TO things. You're free to buy a billion dollar yacht, but you won't because it's outside your financial reach. Natural freedoms are all well and good, but that does nothing to help with social freedoms, especially with those at the very bottom of society. If you have freedom from everything that doesn't suddenly mean you can afford things. Social freedom however gives people freedom proactively. It gives people the freedom to support themselves, to have a roof over their heads, to be fed, to get around when it is otherwise difficult. Freedom from is great, right up until people with disabilities are dying of starvation. It's just not a humane or realistic approach.
1
 @willnitschke Social democracies that provide social freedoms. You're proving my point.
1
@willnitschke That capitalism cannot provide for people and must add elements of socialism. Or are you now lying again to claim that state welfare is capitalism. Weird argument since you already admitted it was bullshit.
1
@shgalagalaa "Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are controlled by the collective and as a result its benefits are shared." "Having subsidised housing and free health care isn't socialism." Rental housing and healthcare are both means of production. You are contradicting yourself in these two sentences. "It can just as if not more easily be argued that social benefit systems fit capitalism better" In what way are social benefits paid for by taxes "capitalism"? "You are arguing for capitalism where the excess efficiency of the system is directed more towards increasing the quality of life of lower classes." Oh, excess efficiency. Except there is no such thing as excess efficiency. Taxes remove funds from those with more, and provide services to those with less. "Its not besides the point. One system revolves around a core moral argument for freedom, where as the other revolves around sacrificing said freedom for another goal." Correct, socialism is about social freedom, while capitalism is about restricting social freedom based on income. Or are you talking about natural freedom, because with only natural freedom people are free to starve to death, that's not exactly particularly free though. Social freedom however gives people the power to do things that they would not otherwise be able to. "You go into the negative rights about how one has to "choose between food and rent" without realizing that capitalism doesn't exclude the positive rights to both of those" So in capitalism we can have free food and housing for the poor? Oh right, so long as we do it by suspending capitalism for them. "Unlike socialism the moral framework of capitalism isn't about excluding a right but instead views one right as most important and compliments it with other rights that are necessary for the realization of that right." Also known as "fuck you, I got mine". In capitalism all rights are subject to wealth. Not enough wealth, you lose a right. ""Should people die from preventable diseases just so you can avoid taxes?" when you are either not understanding the topic or are unable to argue for your position" Again, if you are trying to claim that taxes paying for people to recieve medical care is somehow capitalism, then I'm not sure you know what capitalism is. In what way are taxes paying for welfare privately owned means of production? "One is that the workers elect a leadership that will function as a traditional socialist system where everyone is paid evenly and we would expect the amount to be at the median as thats where democratic decision making logically leads to." Why would that be a conclusion? Workers are paid according to a market. You could create median wages for positions, but not all staff. Most cooperatives also have caps for the highest paid employees, pointing out they can't be paid more than X times more than the lowest. "The other option is that everyone is paid according to their contribution in which case you reach the same outcome as you would under a capitalist system meaning that your new system is the same as the old system in real terms." Except it isn't, as workers still own and control the company. They own the means of production. That is the difference. You can't possibly compare a non-democratic, totalitarian traditional capitalist company to a cooperative where everyone owns what they have produced through the company. "Then you talk about how one can sell the means of production." No, I didn't. "Then you finish off by showing that you have no clue what freedom to use your funds as you see fit as you pretend that if you can afford necessities you could be taxed at any rate and it wouldn't restrict your freedom to spend your funds as you wish." What human rights are restricted by removing, as you called it, excess? Taxes do not take from those with nothing, they take from those that can afford it to give to those with nothing. They are designed to form the basic infrastructure of the nation. And, as I said earlier, earning that money in the first place would be impossible without the stability and infrastructure provided by those tax dollars. So in reality people are paying based on what the system helped them to gain, not based on a removal of their rights. "I specifically didn't address any economic aspects of socialism or capitalism and solely focused on the moral aspects of the core ideologies of both as that was the topic of the discussion." But the removal for people's labour to give to a capitalist is literally a core moral issue. Should you not be entitled to the fruits of your own labour? Why should people working for Apple not get paid part of the Billions they earn each year in profits? Do they not deserve to profit from their labour? So again, you really need to educate yourself on market socialism. Also, figure out what taxes are.
1
@shgalagalaa ntire control is not the only form. Again, welfare is socialist. And positive rights. Yes...and? Odd way to put it, but okay. So what. It's still socialism. Healthcare, food and housing are all positive rights. See, easy. Of course taxes suspend capitalism. They remove money from a private system to a commonly controlled one. Except they also own the company. So not identical. So congrats on failing to read and take bad faith takes based on your ignorance. Companies grow from labour. Not rocket science.
1
@shgalagalaa "Yes healthcaare and food are positive rights. Meaning that others have to act to provide you with such things." Yet the US still struggles to provide healthcare, creating an expensive private system and shoddily covering people in a patchwork mess. "In a capitalist system they would have to be provided so that the individual can access his most important rights in freedom. In socialism they would have to be provided because they value the right in and of itself. Meaning they don't value the freedom but rather the satisfaction of needs itself." This is total nonsense. The right IS the freedom. "Taxes don't suspend capitalism. Taxes are required in every single capitalist theory ever. One cannot have the positive rights required without taxation. You cannot have private property without a legal system, police force and a military. Every single capitalist argument agrees on the above." Might want to talk to James about that, given he advocates for private police forces and non-governmental legal systems. He also advocates against public schooling, and thinks taxation is theft. So maybe tone back the "every single capitalist" talk. "As such it is not outside of the capitalist moral framework to provide housing, food and healthcare through tax funds if it is agreed on that they are required for the person to use their right to freedom." In what way are government provided food, housing and healthcare privately owned? Again, you have to step outside of capitalism to make this work. Even public schools are a form of socialism. They are not privately owned means of production, they are not capitalism. "So now you would have a welfare system under a capitalist economic system in line with capitalist theory and moral values." There is nothing capitalist about welfare. Again, capitalism is private ownership the exact opposite of welfare. "Yet you want to claim it as socialist because you absolutely refuse to accept that capitalism can do everything that socialism can but better." You want to claim it is capitalist because you cannot defend the idea that capitalism can guarantee positive human rights. This is your only avenue of escape. "You are so happy to jump from form of socialism to another but cannot wrap your mind around the fact that all your arguments collapse because all the nordic countries are capitalist countries." You seem to have a very black and white view of capitalism and socialism, when in reality it's a scale. Private businesses in those Nordic countries are indeed capitalist. They are not however entirely capitalistic. Norway for instance has publicly owned oil, which they use to create a fund to support the Norwegian people. They also have socailised medicine, housing first initiatives and more. All of this is socialism. They have what is commonly referred to as a mixed economy. "If you own the company but get paid what you would without ownership the distribution is identical." Who said it was identical. In a capitalist company the profits go to shareholders and owners. In a cooperative they go to the employees. Dividends are a big difference maker. There is also the ability to choose who is in charge, usually a board elected by the workers. Workers can also use their positions to vote for by-laws that the leadership must adhere to. It's like comparing fascism to a democracy and saying "these are basically the same because jobs pay the same" while ignoring all the other factors. "So you believe that the increases in productivity arise from the development of human capital rather than technological progress?" No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that even with technological progress you still need people. If theoretically you did not need people, then congratulations, you just made the argument for universal basic income and automation based taxes. "If we have a theoretical company with only shareholders, the board and fully automated factories. What is the labour that is growing the company here?" If you want to go full tilt and claim that we could theoretically have a 100% automated process with self-repairing robots et cetera then the answer is simple, companies at that point have progressed to the point that labour is no longer needed, meaning we are at the point where workers are mostly not needed. When that happens we are just advocating for more taxes, specific taxes and universal basic income. "Unfortunately you cannot take that position as doing so would mean that capital has value, the value of the capital should belong to the ones who invented it or to who they sold the patent to." I never said that capital doesn't have value, but capital's value is created via labour. The labour that created the automation, that programmed it, that installed it, that built the machinery. "Meaning private property rights in production or a lower level of innovation due to the lower payoff of RnD." RnD by who? Should companies profit off the work of researchers they employ? Surely the researchers did the work, right? And then you end with a strawman. Cool, thanks.
1
@shgalagalaa "Meanwhile entirety of Europe is filled with capitalist countries that do provide the things you want." Which they do with socialism. Again, mixes economy. "If the right was the freedom you wouldn't need to restrict property rights." If you want to call taxes a restriction of property rights, then you also have to agree that taxes are taken from those that can afford them, and used to provide multiple human rights to everyone. They are also used to create the fundamental infrastructure that society is built on, the same society that allowed the wealth to be created in the first place. Without it your income would be lower, not higher. "You seem to fail to grasp the idea that capitalism is simply an economic system where capital is privately owned." No, I get it, which is exactly why welfare is NOT capitalism. "You can have a capitalist country with a significant amount of government intervention." Sure, as markets become less free you move away from free market capitalism and into a planned market capitalism. The more control over the markets the government imposes, the less free the markets are. This however is not how I define socialism. Socialism is not when the government does stuff, it is the common ownership of the means of production. What is being described here is authoritarian vs anarchistic markets. Both of which can exist in both socialism and capitalism. "We also see this in the real world but I suppose you have to ignore it or claim that it is socialism as otherwise you would come to the awkward conclusion that socialism isn't needed to achieve what you wish for." Except the real world very clearly shows that capitalism is not able to provide human rights. "You fail to make any arguments and then you say this random shit. No shit there is an exception to everything. When people say "every single" the obvious meaning of it is the very overwhelming majority." What a cop out. Again, James in this literal thread believes this, so not sure why you are acting as if this is not new. "You believe norway is socialist because they have an oil fund. This is how far gone you are. Norway is a capitalist country. You can pretend that it isn't but that wont change reality." Again, you are talking in absolutes. Norway has a mixed economy, with socialist and capitalist elements. The parts of their economy that socialism handles provide universal healthcare, housing, food, retirement benefits and more to the people of Norway. "Ofcourse capitalism can provide positive human rights. You know why? Because it quite literally is doing exactly that in nearly all European countries." Through socialism. See how that works. "You talk about how there's a scale to socialism and capitalism. Firstoff there really isn't." Yes there is. "The two cannot co-exist so you wither have a capitalist system or a socialist system." So what part of Medicare is privately owned? How about the British NHS? The Military? Stop me when I get to a capitalist system. You even agreed the police are not private, yet here you are claiming that mixed economies don't exist. So stupid. "And for RnD yes obviously the people taking on the risk of development and funding the development should gain the benefits of the development." So not that actual people doing the research, but the capitalist that wants to steal their work. Cool, thanks. "Yet your ideology demands that he may not make such a contract as according to your argument such a contract is unjust. Before you ramble off something completely unrelated again you are supposed to justify why the contract is immoral even with content of both parties. " Because it's exploitative. It forces researchers, and any workers for that matter, to gain less than they otherwise would have. They are losing out on the products of their own labour. "So you concede that capital has value. If capital has value and the value is realized through labour." Labour being the operative word. Thanks. "The capital holders are entitled to compensation for the use of said capital that increases the productivity of labour." Why? You are starting with an assumed conclusion. "If they are not there is no reason for them to invest in the capital and forcefully using the capital without their consent would obviously be stealing and immoral." So we're just using terms like "obviously" now. Cool. "Probably according to a contract between the two parties that both parties willingly agree to without coercion. Aka capitalism." Sure, no coersion in capitalism. "Work or die" but no coersion. lol. "I wont actually respond to the latter ones" Typical braindead capitalist can't respond to points. "You are out here pretending that you can have a system where capital is owned by the employees but the employees are also allowed to sell their capital." Nope. Didn't say that. "The entire point of worker owned corporations is that the employees cannot sell their capital but instead the capital is tied to the job." Congrats, you figured it out. Not sure why you needed to strawman me to get there, but good job either way. But thanks for the pathetic insults that show you have absolutely no intention of acting in good faith. Anything else you want to spill out of the shithole you call a mouth?
1
@shgalagalaa Your entire comment was an appeal to authority and a contradiction. You can't claim capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned, then in the same breath use a term like "welfare capitalism", it's idiotic. Your failure to address any of the points while lying about definitions is just sad.
1
@willnitschke Corporatism is just the end stage of capitalism. The less government there is, the more the vacuum is filled by corporate greed. Love that you talk about people voting for free stuff though, given you are from the generation that was handed everything.
1
@willnitschke Marx argued that eventually people will get annoyed enough to demand change. He said that the growth of working-class organisations would spur this change. That's the exact opposite of corporatism. Nice of you to bring Marx into the record though.
1
@willnitschke Again, you use Marx as an example to defend yourself. Lol.
1
 @willnitschke Yet here you are defending capitalism.
1
 @willnitschke Ah, the old, I'm right because I say so defence. You don't get to shift the default just because you're butthurt.
1
 @willnitschke Will is still butthurt 😂
1
@willnitschke You have yet to ask a valid questions. All of your questions are just veiled insults within loaded questions. It's pathetic.
1
@ExPwner No, the presupposition of the questions makes it invalid. For example, if I were to ask you why you're such a weasel, the question assumes you are a weasel. Loaded questions are easy to spot, especially as Will likes to use them a lot, but you do go very blind when seeing the poor debate tactics of people on your side. Your bias is pretty pathetic in truth.
1
 @willnitschke When did you stop beating your wife?
1
 @willnitschke Why does a question make you so defensive? Can you no answer? If not we can assume the answer is that you still beat your wife, correct?
1
@ExPwner Oops, wrong account Will. This doesn't change that you sound defensive and can't answer the question because you still beat your wife.
1
 @ExPwner Copying me doesn't help your case sunshine. Your replies get weaker and sadder.
1
 @willnitschke Oh look, butthurt Willy the alt is back.
1
@willnitschke "You sound upset." More butthurt from Will. "Remember, though, if James makes you look stupid, honestly, you'd already done that to yourself." If you or James think something it's almost always wrong, so thanks for the compliment.
1
@willnitschke Still butthurt Will? This is getting sad.
1
@willnitschke Just you Will, you're butthurt. It's blatant.
1
"There is also no mention of how capitalism is the predominant economic system in the world and is constantly failing and has never once succeeded for anyone except those who have great wealth and resources, and will only succeed for those people so long as they can ignore the problems it and they cause for the working class." And constantly needs saved, reigned in and restricted to stop it compeltely collapsing.
1
@willnitschke You mean like Mexico? Oh wait no, not that one, that's capitalist. How about El Salvador? Also Capitalist, damn. Guatemala? Honduras? Nicaragua? Stop me when I get to the socialist countries. Meanwhile, the 08 crash was literally just the markets folding in on themselves from a lack of regulation.
1
@philjames8148 Tell me you've never studied anything without telling me. Seriously, you think markets don't crash all on their own?
1
@ExPwner James, we both know you're paid to be hear. How else would you function without a job.
1
@philjames8148 "The boom and bust cycles are more of a result of outside forces like government intervention." Right, like Tulip Mania...oh wait no. "The 1922 crash was a result over expansion of credit. The crash self corrected in 6 months without any government intervention." Which was a result of soldiers returning after WWI and not having jobs. There was no underlying mass debt or speculation associated with this downturn. Comparing it to the likes of 1929 or 2008 is obviously disengenuous. "The 1929 crash was a result of multiple factors. The market had began to recover in the following months." Total bollocks. The crash was far too large for a recovery to happen that fast, and was in conjunction with droughts and global economic issues. People were speculating up to their eyeballs, mortgaged their homes to buy 10 times as many stocks as the mortgage value, and lost the whole lot. It was a disaster. "The 1972 crash from the oil prices. The government again intervened and set price caps this caused major shortages and slowed the economy to a crawl." The alternative being allowing the poor to just not have fuel. It was a global shortage. World oil prices peaked in 1980, nothing Reagan did changed the global price. "The 2008 crash a result of politicians forcing the lowering of credit standard." The Credit Standards were only lowered on loans that banks wanted to sell to the government. Large investment firms had been buying up sub-prime loans for years at this point, and were the epicentre of the crash. In fact, the largest investment firm crash was larger than the entire government loan failure. There was also the fraudulent rating agencies, who were sued for billions by the government for their failures to accurately rate loans, and were the main cause of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failing. The only problem with the government intervension was they should have done what other nations did and bought up companies that were failing, allowing the general public to get their money back on a bailout. This crony capitalism that lead to massive payments to private firms for literally no obligation should never have happend. The recovery however would never have been quick. Global economic downturns don't correct overnight.
1
@ExPwner Aside from all the specifics you mean. But please, tell me more about how the Fed caused private investment firms to make bad bets.
1
@ExPwner Tulip Mania WWI job shortage 1929 market speculation at such high levels people were mortgaging their homes and buying 10 times the amount in stocks. Oil was globally highly priced and globally short in 1980, and nothing Reagan did changed that. 2008 crash was mostly incorrectly and fraudulently rated loans, but the worst were subprimes, which were not federally backed, had no regulatory requirements related to risk or rating, and were purchase en masse by investment firms, who failed at the very start of the crash and triggered a chain reaction. The rating agencies were also sued for billions by the state. If you want I can be more specific, which is that even though the state had huge numbers of loans they has purchased using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to increase market liquidity, a program they have been operating for generations, the hole left by the crash was smaller than the catastrophic failure that was the investment firms. They speculated like mad and lost. So you're just going to ignore all that and claim the Fed caused massive market speculation in both 1929 and 2008, and global oil shortages in 1980.
1
 @ExPwner Lending standards only apply to federally backed loans. As explained, the crash started with private investments.
1
 @ExPwner No it didn't. The investment firms that crashed had nothing to do with the Fed. You really don't have a clue do you.
1
@willnitschke Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had smaller holes in their portfolios than the 3 main investment firms that kicked off the whole thing. As for your card analogy, that's the investment firms again, so thanks.
1
 @ExPwner Nope, the investment firms did not get their money from the Fed. Do you know how investment firms work?
1
 @willnitschke Next time you can just say "yes" and skip all the rest. You are indeed going to ignore all the facts and blame the Fed.
1
@ExPwner Nope. Investment firms had the worst portfolio of bad mortgages. They were buying up non-federally backed sub-prime loans.
1
@ExPwner Because they weren't. Again, investment firms took on their own risk, nothing to do with the Fed. They did not federally back theor loans with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
1
@ExPwner "The Fed flooded markets with cheap credit" Investment firms use deposited funds. Cheap credit has nothing to do with them. You're thinking of banks, and even then banks use deposited funds to loan out. The Fed borrowed money is to cover their required deposit amount. "which along with government making lending standards lower" So, 2 things. 1. Government "making lending standards lower" means they are regulating the market less. This is exactly what you are in favour of. 2. These standards only apply to loans that are federally backed. The sub-prime loans were not federally backed, and therefore did not have any lending standards at all. "Try to pay attention when you are being schooled" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Get rocked kid.
1
 @willnitschke The government damaged neither external companies or itself. But thanks for not understanding anything being talked about because you just want to inject your own bias.
1
@willnitschke So you think the capitalist banks getting bailed out by their paid off government stooges in a blatant case of corporatism is somehow socialism...even though, as you have already defined it, government consumption funded by taxpayers is capitalist funded welfare. So is it only socialism when it upsets you?
1
@willnitschke Except it isn't. Socialism would be buying the businesses, which is exactly what they should have done.
1
@philjames8148 "The solider return of WW1 and the slow recovery of the economy was from 1920 to 1921. Not in 1922" You're the one who said 1922 in your original comment. Is there some other crash you are referring to? "Thomas Sowell on the housing stock market crash of 2008." And he's wrong. Sowell usually is. We have actual documentation on what happened, including the fraudulent rating agencies and mass purchase of non-federally backed loans by investment banks. Everything else is nonsense. "The depression and the Federal reserve and government interface" Again, you can't discount the actual reason for the crash, which was mass speculation on the markets. "The failure of price capping and how price controls don't work." Which is why you need rationing during a shortage. A nice added point from Will here: "If my memory is correct of the 11 business cycles over the last 100 years, 9 of them were triggered as a result of changes in Fed monetary policy" Not triggered, they just saw it coming and reacted accordingly. The Fed cooled the market to make the crash less serious. By reducing speculation they made each crash less severe. Or do you genuinely believe that growth can be infinite? Because that's just silly.
1
@ExPwner Nah, he's wrong. He has a whole shtick on how welfare caused the crime rate to increase, but his theory is supported by exactly zero criminologist, and it's far more likely that baby boomers coming of age just turned into a bunch of criminals. Sowell is completely out of touch, but has a whole discussion where he blames welfare on crime. It's pathetic. What's worse, crime dropped in the 90s, but welfare still exists, yet here he is continuing the talk shit. Whether intentionally or not, Sowell is just a mouthpiece for the Republicans.
1
@ExPwner Aside from basically ever criminologist who has actually studied the rise in crime in the 60s, 70s and 80s? Or the fact that welfare still exists but crime dropped 25 years ago. Or the fact that independent reviews of the causes of the housing crash pinned the problems on sub-prime loans that were mostly bought by private investment firms and the fraudulent rating agencies who were sued for billions. Aside from all of that, I have nothing.
1
 @ExPwner We were talking about Sowell. Sowell is a hack, as explained.
1
@ExPwner Literally just posted stuff to back that up. Go read sunshine.
1
@ExPwner Oh okay. Well since I'm not a sad sack who can be arsed to save screenshots to I can get 3 millio views on my YouTube shorts, we'll just have to agree to disagree...even though it's written ITT.
1
 @ExPwner I showed plenty of evidence, but since you forget how to read when convenient I'm not shocked you missed it.
1
 @ExPwner You can watch his interview yourself. I'm not your mother.
1
 @willnitschke Right, which is why I used specific claims and their specific errors.
1
@ExPwner Just look it up dude. Are really this unfamiliar with Sowell's work?
1
@willnitschke Again, Sowell claimed, contrary to pretty much every criminologist on the planet, that crime went up in the 60s, 70s and 80s because of welfare. He ignored that most people believe crime increased due to the aging boomer population. As they reached their early 20s crime increased accordingly. As they aged out in the mid 90s, crime went down. There is also the lead pipes theory, the war on drugs causing mass incarcerations leading to recidivism, the switch of drugs over to cocaine and crack, the second phase of the Great Migration causing huge economic issues for the black communities, and general economic issues such as the global oil shortage. None of this relates to welfare causing crime, and in fact crime went down while welfare still exists. So thanks. I win.
1
 @willnitschke one agree with Sowell. Keep reaching. And yes, gas prices effect a whole range of other goods. Their price skyrocketing due to a global shortage is an issue.
1
@ExPwner I'm not the one incapable of researching a single interview. It's not a non sequitur. If the claim is that crime increased because of welfare then surely welfare should have continued to cause crime. It did not however.
1
 @ExPwner Sorry that you follow a hack.
1
 @ExPwner Still waiting for you to actually read a Sowell book or watch an interview. His position is incredibly well noted on welfare. It is also false.
1
@ExPwner You mean aside from the books and interviews?
1
 @ExPwner And other crackpot anarchists that don't understand what a power vacuum is lol.
1
 @willnitschke Because businesses never increase corruption.....
1
@willnitschke What an illogical argument. Here, let me apply it to literally anything: Government is made up of people...people don't "increase corruption" blah blah blah. Pathetic reasoning. Try harder. Meanwhile companies do indeed act corrupt. Just look at the Sackler family. 100% motivated by greed. Maximised profits as much as they could. Ruined the lives of millions, including children.
1
@ExPwner "In your world a democratic government can do no wrong while a person literally just employing others is evil" Not what I said at all. I said that using Will's exact logic corruption doesn't exist at all. "Face it, you wouldn’t know logic if you were sitting in a course on logic." I used Will's own argument against him. What could be more logical?
1
@ExPwner Lol, okay champ. You keep believing that.
1
@ExPwner Will tried to claim that businesses can't be corrupt because businesses are just people. That exact same logic would apply to literally every single claim of corruption as corruption is done by people. But sure, claim your "win". 🤣🤣
1
@ExPwner "Businesses are made up of people... people don't "increase corruption"" You're a moron.
1
@ExPwner You really are completely blind to the point aren't you.
1
@ExPwner I quoted what he said directly.
1
@ExPwner Yes it was.
1
@ExPwner But his reasoning was that businesses are just people, and people don't increase corruption. That was his entire argument.
1
 @ExPwner It is if you use his logic and apply it to literally everything.
1
@willnitschke Wow, wrong 3 times in a row. Yes, businesses are capable of far more corruption than an individual would be. Their pooling of wealth allows them to buy off people, and with less government regulation that would only worsen.
1
@willnitschke Glad you're here to not make an argument.
1
 @willnitschke Again, you're just calling yourself out.
1
 @ExPwner Glad even the most basic logical steps allude you. Really puts everything you say in perspective.
1
@willnitschke I'm not the one trying to argue that businesses can't be corrupt. I'm also not the one saying that insults show you are wrong then hurling insults. You really need to stop projecting with all that, you sound very emotional.
1
@ExPwner You're right, Will did say some illogical nonsense. Glad that we agree.
1
@willnitschke You made yourself look foolish Will. Honestly, the claim that businesses cannot be corrupt and cannot cause corruption is just sad.
1
@ExPwner So we agree that businesses can be corrupt.
1
 @ExPwner My original point was that businesses CAN increase corruption. I never said they always do. So according to you, you and Will were fighting a strawman. Cute.
1
@ExPwner You can read my comment for yourself James. Where did I say that businesses equal corruption?
1
@ExPwner Then his entire point was stupid, and not at all relevant to my point. But keep trying to gaslight.
1
@willnitschke You're right, it's stupid because the way James interpreted your argument was nonsensical. What even was your point? I'm sure it was equally dumb, but Indo have to ask.
1
 @willnitschke That man couldn't destroy a sheet of paper with what he put out, nevermind anyone's ideology, or their religion.
1
@ExPwner I love how salty you are now. You're wrong about all of those and I've proven it a dozen times over.
1
 @ExPwner Yeah, I addressed it all multiple times. Your definition doesn't even include market socialism.
1
 @willnitschke Again, production is done by labour. Labour does not EQUAL production. Squares and rectangles mate. You made this mistake already.
1
@ExPwner Right, because all squares are rectangles, but not all rectanges are squares. Production is done by labour, but not all labour is production.
1
 @ExPwner Nah, it's labour. Materials and machinery are not production, they are simply there to be used by labour when producing things.
1
@ExPwner "wrong because without other things you have no production." So if I dig a hole did I produce a hole or not?
1
 @ExPwner With nothing. I'll do it with my hands.
1
 @willnitschke I agree, not all labour is production, but a hole is a product. People do get paid to dig holes Will.
1
 @ExPwner So you admit it's possible but are now deflecting.
1
 @ExPwner Again, you are ignoring the fact that I have defined a product with zero capital investment, only labour. If you want I can add "pulling weeds" to the list.
1
 @ExPwner Yes I did. Stop running James.
1
 @willnitschke Who said nobody wanted it? Why are you making thing up?
1
@ExPwner You disappeared up your own arse. Again, if someone pays me to dig a hole, and I do it bare handed, what capital was used? Here, let's try another one. If someone pays me to pull weeds what capital was used? I have a product (hole digging/weed pulling) and can fulfill deliver that product with my own hands. Can't wait for you to tell me that my own hands are capital goods now.
1
 @ExPwner So no response, only mimicry. Sad.
1
 @willnitschke Lol, corporatism is capitalism you child.
1
 @willnitschke Silly boomer doesn't know what corporatism is it seems. Businesses are privately owned in corporatism. That's capitalism.
1
@willnitschke You see how it says alternative? Something cannot be an alternative to socialism while also being socialism. What's funny is corporatism is specifically about giving corporations, as in capitalist owners of said corporations, a say on policy. The New Deal was not a dictated approach to policy, but instead an agreement between businesses and government. So thanks for proving you have no idea what you're talking about lol.
1
 @willnitschke It doesn't say alternative version of socialism, it says alternative to socialism. Is English not your first language?
1
@ExPwner Of course I admit it. Again, the New Deal was made in cooperation with businesses. Acting like America hasn't always been corporatist capitalism is joke. Even when creating policy that helps workers, they only did so with heavy corporate input. Bigger, more unilateral change, like that of many European nations, was made without businesses getting their shoe quite so hard in the door. Businesses have far too much influence on this nation. Acting like that's socialism is just pathetic. They are privately owned businesses, and that makes it capitalism.
1
@willnitschke Worker cooperatives are not private ownership, they are common ownership, as has been explained multiple times to you. Fascism is indeed an alternative to socialism, communism however is not. True communism would be a type of socialism. I can't believe you're getting this upset over your own source calling corporatism separate from socialism. Silly capitalists and their support for corporatism.
1
 @willnitschke No, all the workers. Nobody said everyone in the nation.
1
@ExPwner "Worker coops are private ownership. They are not owned by all." They are owned by all the workers, collectively, not privately.
1
@ExPwner "They have more and more contract workers who aren’t owners." Contract workers have their own businesses with their own labour. There is no exploitation. "But all of that irrelevant since it is still private property." It's cooperative property, which is owned in common.
1
@ExPwner "wage workers have their own contracts with their own business" No, they don't, that's not how that works. "They agree to sell their labor for its full value." But do not recieve the full value of what they produce. They are exploited, per GA Cohen.
1
@ExPwner Nope. You really need to learn the difference between employees and contractors.
1
@willnitschke Total nonsense. You are just making up shit to cover for worker exploitation, then describing capitalism and calling it collectivism. It's pathetic.
1
@willnitschke You could start by presenting some facts. I'll wait.
1
@willnitschke I'll let you know how I feel about facts when you post some.
1
@willnitschke None, as you have presented none.
1
 @willnitschke See what I mean. You can't even maintain a conversation between comments, how could you possibly have the mental capacity to show a single fact.
1
 @willnitschke They weren't facts. See, simple.
1
 @willnitschke But I did explain it. Not understanding an explanation doesn't make it not true, it just makes you ignorant, correct?
1
 @ExPwner What an argument. Do you always resort to insults rather than logic? Is it because you get very emotional about these topics.
1
@ExPwner Given your "argument" was to call me "mentally rtarded" it's pretty obvious you don't have a clue how strongly you are describing yourself.
1
@willnitschke If you didn't read it the first time, and aren't capable of going back and reading through the comments, why would anyone assume that posting it again would help you? Fool me once champ.
1
 @willnitschke Oh look, the butthurt zealot is projecting. Get a grip Will.
1
 @willnitschke Would help if I had one. Keep preaching though zealot.
1
 @ExPwner Oh dear, zealot 2 has arrived.
1
@shgalagalaa Considering they offered nothing of substance in this thread, what is there to respond to?
1
 @willnitschke You're describing capitalism again.
1
 @willnitschke Nope, capitalism.
1
 @willnitschke Giving all your assets to a singular boss is capitalism 101. Slapping the word collectivism on it doesn't make it collectivist.
1
 @willnitschke So you're just proving you don't understand the market socialism presented by Wolff.
1
@willnitschke Your inability to understand something doesn't make it imaginary.
1
 @willnitschke But they do exist, you know that. Maybe you just don't understand the concept as well as you think.
1
 @ExPwner Literally all of capitalism is people giving up their work for less than it's worth.
1
 @willnitschke Literally every business owner.
1
@willnitschke Now you're lost again. Market socialism, ie worker cooperatives are about distributing ownership to the workers. Capitalism is about keeping ownership in the hands of a singular boss, which is exactly what you claimed socialism did. According to you socialism = capitalism.
1
 @willnitschke See, it's idiotic statements like that making me doubt your sanity. You're confusing worker ownership with capitalist corporations. An easy mistake for a simpleton like yourself.
1
@willnitschke I love this new line. Watching the light fade from your eyes when comparisons like this blow up is actually hilarious. In a worker cooperative ownership is split evenly between the workers, giving my them all control over their own labour, allowing them to vote in their own leadership et cetera. In a Corporation the control is not based on employment, but based on capital. There is also a portion of the company not owned in stocks. So even if all the employees owned equal shares, and not outside investor owned any, they would still be competing with an owner. They do not own the product of their own labour as ownership is based on current capital wealth spent on the company, not based on their own personal work.
1
@willnitschke You mean sick pay? Sure, why wouldn't they get sick pay? They own shares, that's why they get voting rights and dividends, like all shareholder. The shares are not publicly traded. I know to a business owner like yourself workers having control of their own labour sounds like a scam, but that's because you would rather they are subservient to you.
1
@willnitschke No, you own a share of the business.
1
@willnitschke "These "share-like things" you keep describing." They're called shares. "They are basically monopoly money, right?" No, they give voting rights and dividends in the company. "Because you can buy and sell real shares." They aren't tradeable shares, no. "These are just meaningless bits of paper meant to make you feel good, correct?" Voting rights and dividends are anything but meaningless, but you hate workers so no shock there.
1
@willnitschke Everything has value because you pretend it has value. That's how value works. You're right, they don't own it because they vote, they vote because they own it. Cart before the horse there champ. No, not performance bonuses or salaries, those are independent. Dividends from profits which are distributed evenly to all workers.
1
@willnitschke You always owned it, so yes. No, it's social ownership. You vote and that vote decides how money is spent. Don't like it? Run for election yourself. Distributed by corporations to who?
1
@willnitschke As in owned by everyone at the same time. There are no individual owners. So yes, you are wrong. Oh good, so you agree that dividends are distributed to real owners. Glad we agree.
1
 @willnitschke If dividends are distributed to owners, and cooperative employees get dividends, then aren't they owners?
1
@willnitschke Not the same thing as a dividend. Bonuses are an expense. How do you not understand the difference? Again, you said corporations pay dividends to owners. Cooperatives also do that, therefore their workers are owners.
1
@willnitschke Wrong and wrong. Dividends and bonuses are different, as explained. Bonuses are usually set agreed payments made for meeting goals, while dividends are subject to company profits. Conflating the two is an obvious attempt to try and obfuscate the point. Again, you agreed that dividends are paid to owners. Cooperatives pay dividends to their workers, because the workers are the owners.
1
@willnitschke Bonuses are rewards for meeting goals, not even necessarily profit related. Executives taking massive bonuses during the financial crash is proof of that. DIvidends are awards of excess profits. These 2 things are not the same. Dividends are only paid to owners. Likening the two is a pathetic attempt to ignore the actual legal meaning of these terms to weasel out of your own admission.
1
@willnitschke Wonderful, so we agree that bonuses and dividends are not the same thing. Thanks. They aren't even taxed the same ffs. I'm not the one that said corporations pay dividends to owners, you were. Cooperatives do the same. Thanks for proving me right twice.
1
@willnitschke Wrong, they are different. Calling them the same is actually pathetic. Criteria for payment is different. Taxation is different. Who it gets paid to is different. Nothing about the two is the same other than they both use money. But thanks for proving me right then trying to cover it up. Dividends are paid to owners, as you said, which cooperative employees are.
1
@willnitschke Gaslighting, sealioning and strawmanning in one. Is this because you can't support your ideas and have to run from the fact that dividends are paid to owners, and cooperatives pay dividends to emoyees, therefore making employees owners?
1
@willnitschke Incorrect. Dividends are paid to owners.
1
 @willnitschke Again, dodging the point on dividends. DIvidends are paid to owners. Cooperatives pay dividends to employees, therefore employees are owners.
1
 @willnitschke Are they paying out dividends?
1
 @willnitschke Was it a dividend?
1
@willnitschke Again, was it a dividend?
1
 @willnitschke The payment. Was it a dividend?
1
@willnitschke It's a simple question Will. Did you forget your original point? Or are you just blatantly trying to avoid the fact that cooperatives pay their employees dividends? 🤔
1
@willnitschke "they do" Perfect. Everything else you said was worthless as you already admitted I'm right.
1
@willnitschke Your agreement with me and your attempt to cover it up again.
1
@willnitschke I said cooperatives pay their employees dividends. You said they do. Nothing imagined there.
1
 @willnitschke That's just stupid. By your definition companies are owned by nobody. In reality cooperatives are owned collectively by the workers.
1
 @GeorgeLeroux Land o Lakes. I mean honestly, the Mondragon Corporation is used as an example a lot as well. Alvarado Bakery is another one. It can, and does work.
1
@willnitschke They are a collection of businesses, all of which produce goods or services. You should probably look up the businesses within Mondragon to understand how they function. Keep lying though Will, or is it just ignorance from you. Usually is.
1
 @willnitschke Oh so NOW representation isn't ownership. Thanks for making my point 1000 times for me.
1
@willnitschke Wonderful, so you agree that the leadership of a worker cooperative only represent the workers, they do not own the business. Thanks Will. Owner operated, which is market socialism. Thanks.
1
@willnitschke Now. You already own it, which gives you the power to appoint leadership. And as you just admitted, an appointed leader is a representative, not an owner. Representatives do not own a business, they simply represent it.
1
@willnitschke Avoiding the subject is just sad. Again, representatives do not own what they represent, as you already stated. Therefore, the leadership of a cooperative does not own the cooperatives they represent the will of the owners, and can be removed. You still also have yet to show how James's libertarian shithole would be moral. Oh, and cooperatives employees, who are the owners, are referred to as members. TMYK.
1
 @willnitschke They own it collectively. The ownership is indivisible.
1
@willnitschke "But "the workers" are divisible into individuals." Not in terms of their ownership. They own collectively. "If the individuals own nothing" Nobody said that. Strawman. "Does basic algebra confuse you?" That's not algebra, it's arithmatic.
1
@ExPwner Nope. While shares cannot be bought and sold, they can be owned as part of a whole. Shares cannot be withdrawn, but members are all collectively owners. How do you still not know how cooperatives work Will?
1
@willnitschke "What you typed is vague meaningless babble." Translation: Will doesn't understand. "This means you don't know what you're talking about because you can't explain yourself" It means that YOU don't know what you're talking about because the subject is obviously beyond you.
1
 @ExPwner Hey Will. Good to see you on your alt here too responding to every single Will account failure one by one.
1
 @willnitschke Silly alt is trying to gaslight. Your butthurt will stop for nobody though.
1
@willnitschke Wow, gaslighting while being accused of gaslighting. I mean it's predictable, if a little tacky.
1
Yet the largest wealth disparity is from capitalism.
1
@ExPwner Total nonsense. Economic Freedom, Income Inequality and Life Satisfaction in OECD Countries Johan Graafland & Bjorn Lous "The most important finding is that income inequality has a significant negative impact on life satisfaction, which supports our core hypothesis, namely that income inequality reduces average life satisfaction (H6). In line with theory, it is the net Gini coefficient that depresses life satisfaction, rather than the gross Gini coefficient. Furthermore, we find that net income inequality is positively related to fiscal freedom, free trade and freedom from government regulation and that sound money decreases income inequality, as hypothesized. These results are robust for the type of indicators used for economic freedom (Fraser Institute or Heritage Foundation)." Also, in what world does welfare increase income inequality? They are literally setting a poor baseline with benefits.
1
@ExPwner I posted a reference. Why are you lying?
1
@ExPwner So no actual response. Typical.
1
@ExPwner And you failed. You tried to call empirical analysis bias. They showed a strong correlation. Nothing else you say is worthwhile. You are literally cherry-picking source material over final conclusions.
1
 @willnitschke They actually score better than the US, so thanks Will. Next time read the study rather than posting your feeling.
1
 @willnitschke Source for your claims about China?
1
 @willnitschke Yes, because the Gini coefficient is about inequality, not GDP. It's also named after someone called Corrado Gini, it's not an acronym.
1
@willnitschke So the study that advocates for the pooling of all pensions into a single national system, that advocates against provinces having separate pension schemes, and that views the individuals accounts as not distributive enough is the study you want to focus on? The study that argues we should be distributing wealth more. That study? This is also pensions. China has a basic income system that sets a poverty baseline. And how much Social Security do American retirees get as a minimum? Do you know? I'll give you a hint, it's the same in every currency. Is there also a reason you compared just retirement pensions to all US welfare benefits?
1
 @willnitschke Government owned means of production in democracies are socialism.
1
 @willnitschke Lol. Plenty of examples of government owned means of production exist. From healthcare, to railways, to banks, governments own a lot of stuff.
1
@willnitschke Of course state owned means of production aren't market socialism lol. Have you been listening at all? Honestly, you sounds completely clueless right now. And as I have explained, socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. When done through a state socialism must give control over to the voters, allowing them democratic control over the means of production. Please try to keep up, you seem to find this concept very difficult to grasp.
1
@willnitschke Since you can't explain the contradiction we can all agree that you're just confused, otherwise you would show it.
1
@willnitschke Except government only represents the community in a democracy, therefore only democratic governments have socialism. See, easy. But I can tell this will confuse you again. Not all rectangles are squares Will.
1
 @ExPwner Nope. Stop lying.
1
 @willnitschke Neither.
1
 @willnitschke No, that I use a definition from scholars who literally created the concept of socialism, and not meatheads like you.
1
 @willnitschke Nope. Weird you think all socialism is Marxism though. Really shows the full extent of your lack of knowledge.
1
@ExPwner "you did not use a definition from scholars" Yeah I did. "you used a made up one from cranks that no one uses as an authority on the subject" They literally wrote the book on the subject lol.
1
 @ExPwner The fact that you call them all Marxists shows how stupid you are. Marx and Engels were two of dozens of scholars that, again, literally wrote the book on socialism.
1
 @willnitschke No, I'm saying that there are many forms of socialism, which you would know if you had spent literally 1 minute looking into it.
1
@ExPwner It's nothing to do with what I want. Again, they literally invented the idea. Not sure why that confuses you. Think if it this way, who would you trust to explain relativity, Albert Einstein or Philipp Lenard?
1
@willnitschke "I don't "trust" anyone to tell me what the General or Special Theory of Relativity is or isn't. You read the text and look at the evidence. If you just listen to people's opinions you're always going to be an idiot. Consider that free life advice." Great. So read the writings of socialists on what socialism is rather than taking the opinions of the general public. Thanks for making my point for me. "Sorry, why would anyone care what you say? You're a liar and fool and change your assertions from sentence to sentence, assuming you even notice the self contradictions." You literally just contradicted yourself, claiming that you should read the text and look at the evidence, when that is exactly what you have openly advocated against over and over. So, thanks for projecting again.
1
 @ExPwner Again, it's nothing to do with me. You're arguing with socialists from over 100 years ago.
1
@ExPwner "No one else cares about 100 year old texts from idiot socialists because they aren’t an authoritative source." They literally wrote the book on socialism, so yes, they are the authorititive source. Let me guess, you would rather we got our definition of socialism from capitalists? "If it was about intellectual honesty then you wouldn’t be saying “socialist thinkers” should define socialism AND capitalism." Socialist thinkers don't define capitalism, capitalists do, and they define it as the private ownership of the means of production. Everyone agrees on that. "Yet here you are, spewing your “state capitalist” oxymoron because you want your feelings to dictate definitions" Except it does fit the definition. In state capitalism businesses are still owned privately, but the markets they operate in is heavily directed by the state. You can argue that it is therefore not capitalism, however the type of capitalism that you subscribe to is specifically called "free market capitalism" for a reason. Will has even been so ignorant as to use free markets with capitalism interchangably, but that would just mean that the name free market capitalism means "free market free market" or "capitalism capitalism" it makes no sense. Therefore, there must be a difference between free markets and capitalism. I'm sure you want to try to discredit the likes of William Connolly, Janet Coleman, David Miller and Alan Ryan, all economists or political theoriest. There are plently more, people who point out the obvious lack of socialism in the Soviet Union, and who go into details on how fascism actually functions. Your problem is you continue to operate on a strawman, failing to actual define terms and continuing to misrepresent your opposition. The existence and theorising of market socialism alone blows your entire failed definition out of the water. Your definition doesn't fit actual socialism, therefore it fails to accurately define it, therefore it is incorrect or incomplete.
1
@ExPwner I mean sure, if we're just disregarding university professors because it makes you feel bad, then by all means. Of course, I can then just do the exact same.
1
@willnitschke Like all that government hindered roads, healthcare, environmental regulation, health regulations, mandated time off, the military... stop me when you find something you disagree with. The truth is that as wastful as you think the government is, their ability to negotiate at a national level leads to much lower costs. For example, healthcare. The US has the most expensive healthcare in the world. The result of that is many people are excluded, and national health outcomes are worse. But I'm sure your crazy capitalist ideology will look great with private militaries and exclusionary healthcare, while homelessness creeps up and the wealth gap widens.
1
 @willnitschke US healthcare is private dumb dumb. It's cheaper in countries with socialised medicine. So apparently by "overstepping" you mean pussyfooting around corporations.
1
 @willnitschke Wrong. The money they spend is on medical INSURANCE not medical CARE. The care side is all private, hense the cost.
1
 @willnitschke Yes it is. There are no Medicaid hospitals.
1
 @willnitschke Therefore it's not healthcare, it's health insurance.
1
 @willnitschke So which government hospital can I use Medicare in?
1
 @willnitschke Do you even know the difference? Here, let's try again then. Where is the Medicaid/Medicare hospital I can go to?
1
@willnitschke It's an entitelement program that give an people free insurance policy. It even has plans you can choose from. It is not healthcare. So can we use the word free now, or are you going to throw another hissy fit?
1
@willnitschke "Why would they need to pay for insurance if they are already entitled to the welfare entitlement?" Because the welfare entitlement is insurance. "What does the insurance actually do then?" Guarantees payment if conditions are met. "You make no sense. Why are you so upset?" Projection.
1
@willnitschke No. Again, specific conditions. It's just financial protection against adverse events. That's it. So yes, the government in the US gives health insurance, not healthcare. Healthcare is doctors. There are no Medicaid or Medicare doctors, just doctors who take Mediare and Medicaid insurance. You are confused because Australia does have government doctors. Australia has both health insurance and healthcare. The UK is the same, which is why we have National Insurance cards, and pay national insurance taxes to the NHS. It also covers things like state pensions, because you are insuring against more than just your health.
1
 @willnitschke Yes, the entitelement is insurance. Not having to pay directly for it is how all entitelements work. You seem to have an issue with the concept of entitelements, not insurance.
1
 @willnitschke No, I mean insurance.
1
@willnitschke No, it's insurance. I'll add it to the list of things that confuse you. The entitlement is insurance. Here, let me clear it up for you. If it's an entitlement what sort of entitlement is it?
1
 @willnitschke If it's an entitlement then what does ot entitle you to?
1
 @willnitschke Wonderful, healthcare with who?
1
 @willnitschke Who gives them healthcare?
1
 @willnitschke What doctor? Who do they work for?
1
@willnitschke Again, who do the doctors work for? Do they work for the government?
1
@willnitschke I asked first Will. Come on, who do the doctors work for? Who employs them?
1
 @willnitschke Speaking from experience I see. Again Will, who employs the doctors that Medicare and Medicaid pay for?
1
@willnitschke Painting yourself into a corner then refusing to answer because you know you're wrong is a typical Will move. Let's just chalk this one up to you admitting you lost by using such a blatantly stupid tactic and call it quits.
1
@willnitschke Again, idioms confusing you I see. Let's try again Will. If I am recieving Medicare, and I go to the doctor for a checkup, are they a Medicare doctor?
1
 @willnitschke You should know because the answer is the same for everyone, no they are not Medicare doctors, because there are no Medicare doctors.
1
 @willnitschke So how does a doctor get paid by Medicare if they are not a Medicare doctor? Any guesses Will?
1
@ExPwner Ah yes, ESOPs, or cooperatives but less good.
1
@ExPwner Most workers don't even know they exist, and the cooperatives that do exist actually usually have waiting lists to join. They don't pay lower wages, in fact they usually pay higher when comparing equally to region and industry. The ROI is irrelevant as the workers are earning based on their own labour. You are just describing how these companies don't exploit workers, and complaining about it. Gotta love you getting butthurt though, always priceless.
1
 @ExPwner Oh, "the data" do tell.
1
@ExPwner "Companies are organized into four industry categories: manufacturing, construction, retail, and other." So not controlled for location and specific industry as I literally just asked. "Workers are identified by broad job category: apprentices, production workers, clerical workers, and managers. Information on education is unavailable" Jesus. THIS is your source? "Certainly, the models we have investigated ignore many confounding features such as the costs of making input adjustments, intertemporal considerations, and issues associated with bargaining. Moreover, because of lack of data, we have ignored the prices of many other inputs such as raw materials and energy and variations in these other input prices are unlikely to be uncorrelated with variations in the price of capital. These issues are worthy of further investigation." I mean, when they actively tell you the data is shit try listening. The fact that they employ more people but keep far less capital should be your first clue. They are not matching like for like. The cooperative sample size is just too small to generalise.
1
@ExPwner I responded to the data. Meanwhile you openly ignored data I posted before. Real hypocrite aren't you.
1
@willnitschke Better how? What is your measure?
1
@ExPwner I posted a whole paper that showed a 0.99 correlation between net gini coefficient and multiple measures of economic freedom. You ignored it.
1
@willnitschke How is it better?
1
@willnitschke So you have zero measure of "better". Got it.
1
@ExPwner "He would attribute claims that Sowell never made" Except he did, so there's that. He has entire editorial pieces and an interview dedicated to claiming that welfare caused crime increases in the 60s, 70s and 80s. If you really want to claim that this is not his position then that's fine too, but honestly it's just sad you have to ignore the reality, which is that criminologists openly disagree with his take, and instead blame the likes of Will's generation, lead pipes and economic downturns for the crime increases in the timeframe.
1
 @ExPwner So you agree that such a claim would be ridiculous. Oh good.
1
@ExPwner I'm just trying to nail down your thoughts on the issues. If you want me to post Sowell's books, articles and 40+ minutes interview with the Hoover Institute then I can do that, but the core idea here seems to be that you agree that the claim would be crazy.
1
@ExPwner Got it, so you yet again have no position. Typical James.
1
@ExPwner Cope. Present a position or keep crying, your choice.
1
@ExPwner I did back it up, and you went onto claim that Sowell doesn't hold any positions. Since I'm apparently attacking the ghost of Sowell past, I don't really see the point. Either you have a position that you want to defend, that being Sowell, or you don't.
1
@ExPwner "No you did not. You did not bring a single source to back up your assertions about Sowell." I explained the entire fucking field mate. Try again. "s⁠o you withdraw your statements about Sowell that you refused to back up?" Dude is a hack, which I backed up. You on the other hand want to both hide behind him, and refuse to support him at the same time. Face it, you don't support Sowell.
1
 @ExPwner So no source. You can't back up your claims about Sowell being credible at all.
1
 @willnitschke Says the troll.
1
 @ExPwner I would rather have free food for those that need it over no food for the poor. Your system would result is the poor being left in the gutter.
1
@ExPwner Yes it would. The history of capitalism is a perfect example of that. Indian famines, the Irish famine, even the great depression saw people struggle to find their next meal. I mean you try to use breadlines as an example of a problem, but the US literally had breadlines in 1930 because capitalism had failed them. You have absolutely nothing to back up a single one of your assertions.
1
 @ExPwner Now you're just trolling.
1
 @willnitschke Is strawmen all you have? Troll.
1
 @ExPwner If you're this ignorant about basics like economies collapsing then what hope is there for you?
1
 @willnitschke Oh sorry, please explain how free markets crashing due to mass speculation is somehow the fault of anyone other than the people losing on their bets.
1
 @ExPwner Sure there wasn't. Speculation was all government's fault.
1
 @ExPwner Hiding from an argument doesn't make it go away.
1
@ExPwner "The prices of stocks soared to fantastic heights in the great “Hoover bull market,” and the public, from banking and industrial magnates to chauffeurs and cooks, rushed to brokers to invest their liquid assets or their savings in securities, which they could sell at a profit. Billions of dollars were drawn from the banks into Wall Street for brokers’ loans to carry margin accounts. The spectacles of the South Sea Bubble and the Mississippi Bubble had returned. People sold their Liberty Bonds and mortgaged their homes to pour their cash into the stock market. In the midsummer of 1929 some 300 million shares of stock were being carried on margin, pushing the Dow Jones Industrial Average to a peak of 381 points in September. Any warnings of the precarious foundations of this financial house of cards went unheeded. Prices began to decline in September and early October, but speculation continued, fueled in many cases by individuals who had borrowed money to buy shares—a practice that could be sustained only as long as stock prices continued rising. On October 18 the market went into a free fall, and the wild rush to buy stocks gave way to an equally wild rush to sell. The first day of real panic, October 24, is known as Black Thursday; on that day a record 12.9 million shares were traded as investors rushed to salvage their losses. Still, the Dow closed down only six points after a number of major banks and investment companies bought up great blocks of stock in a successful effort to stem the panic that day. Their attempts, however, ultimately failed to shore up the market. The panic began again on Black Monday (October 28), with the market closing down 12.8 percent. On Black Tuesday (October 29) more than 16 million shares were traded. The Dow lost another 12 percent and closed at 198—a drop of 183 points in less than two months. Prime securities tumbled like the issues of bogus gold mines. General Electric fell from 396 on September 3 to 210 on October 29. American Telephone and Telegraph dropped 100 points. DuPont fell from a summer high of 217 to 80, United States Steel from 261 to 166, Delaware and Hudson from 224 to 141, and Radio Corporation of America (RCA) common stock from 505 to 26. Political and financial leaders at first affected to treat the matter as a mere spasm in the market, vying with one another in reassuring statements. President Hoover and Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon led the way with optimistic predictions that business was “fundamentally sound” and that a great revival of prosperity was “just around the corner.” Although the Dow nearly reached the 300 mark again in 1930, it sank rapidly in May 1930. Another 20 years would pass before the Dow regained enough momentum to surpass the 200-point level." "The lack of government oversight is regarded as a cause of the 1929 crash, with policies based on laissez-faire economic theories" To put things into perspective, people mortgaged their houses to buy stocks. The stocks they bought they only had to put down 10% of the total value of stocks, so people were putting their life savings times 10 into the market. All the extra cash caused the market to explode. Said explosion lasted right up until a single market began to slump. The small slump made everyone cut and run, crashing the whole thing. See, sinple. So how is that government?
1
 @ExPwner I quoted multiple sources. You keep quoting right-wing funded sites and nothing else. The truth is that we've already tried your laissez-faire approach. It failed.
1
 @willnitschke Oh look, Will is lost. Tell me Will, are you on another drunk bender, or just upset with me?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Exactly zero polls put US job satisfaction that high.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 The questions they ask and the methodology they use also put India at number 1. Really says something about the nature of US workers.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 See what I mean, you sound like a clown. Randstand does small online surveys. Results like this are notoriously poor, especially in nations like India where only half the population has internet access. Pew has far more comprehensive results on US job satisfaction.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Sampling bias such as in India where half the country doesn't even have internet access, reliance on self-reporting, response fatigue and plenty more. Pew Research has much more comprehensive numbers on US job satisfaction.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 62% is not favourable mate. For the reasons I already mentioned Randstad is unacceptable. Using more comprehensive comparisons from each country would be far more useful. As I already stated, for countries like India it requires Internet access, which half the country doesn't have. I also doubt they are using a native Indian language for these tests, meaning they are limited to the 30% of English speakers. Plus the survey being online likely limits the job markets they survey. The number of people surveyed is also small overall and doesn't address industries evenly. It's a shallow and flawed look at job satisfaction.
1
 @willnitschke Corporate media is controlled by the CEO that owns it. You should know Will, you get fed daily doses of Rupert Murdoch bullshit.
1
 @willnitschke Of course you don't corporatist. I believe you, thousands wouldn't.
1
He did a great job here.
1
 @ExPwner He did. Did you not watch it?
1
@ExPwner Try watching the debate.
1
 @willnitschke Great job at debating. Sorry I needed to clarify, I know you struggle with stuff like this.
1
 @willnitschke Poor Will, struggling to read basic comments aren't you. Try harder Will my pathetic simpleton.
1
 @willnitschke Not everyone, just you. Maybe try reading my comment again if you are confused at me calling you confused.
1
 @ExPwner Quit being pathetic.
1
 @willnitschke Oh look, the troll has returned. Praise be.
1
 @willnitschke Nah, just you.
1
@ExPwner You mean where you said there wasn't a census taken in Kenya, even though there was? I mean, if lying is your go-to then why would anyone talk to you? The man wrote a 200 page book on the subject, and the best you can do is poorly research census data?
1
@willnitschke "Argument from authority, fallacy." It's only a fallacy if the authority is invalid, which it is not. Try reading it.
1
@ExPwner "you mean where you lied and there wasn’t one taken?" Nope, there was. The entire empire was surveyed. Your research skills are just lacking.
1
@willnitschke "99% of real economists" Sounds like an argument from authority, which you just said is always fallacious. If it isn't then you are claiming that these random people with no authority disagree, which is just an argument ad populum.
1
 @willnitschke Wonderful, so we agree that your critique is bullshit. Now try reading his book.
1
"Socialism is 1. a return to slavery" Nonsense. Egalitarian principles that value all people within society equally would never result in slavery. "2. it is the new face of imperialist colonialism, prancing under a globalist banner with the obvious intent to destroy the nations." As opposed to the current face, and the old face of colonialism, capitalism. "This is not social evolution. It is violent, forced transformation." Not really. We have been moving more towards Marxism for decades. Marx wrote about: Universal education for all children. Federal banks. Progressive tax systems. Free legal services. Separation of church and state. Universal suffrage. There are more, but these are all things they didn't have in the 1840s and we do have today. "The more independence an individual is granted to earn and acquire property with their legitimate earnings, the less vestiges of colonialism we will find." So the slave trade wasn't done by private individuals aquiring property? "Leadership was divinely appointed or granted by blood. Many of these peoples wiped out or enslaved other peoples to graft their territories." Right, which is why socialism first and foremost encourages democracy.
1
@freyfaust6218 "Colonialism, which is the forced takeover and suppression of other cultures, existed well before Marx insulted the challengers to the monarchies." Agreed. "Colonialism is what Marxism is in application: the forced destruction and suppression of existing cultures" Not even close. "Marxism is the violent, colonialist projection of an aspect of German culture on the whole world." Except we already agreed it doesn't need to be violent. Also, pretty sure Germany already had a violent colonialist projection on an aspect of German culture onto the world. "Current, so- called democracies are socialist Frankenstein monsters, i.e. Fascist." Got it, democracy is fascism. Black is white. Up is down. "Their governments manipulate the value of money and steer the markets, using the public purse to drive inflation and play favorites." Which governments? You know there aren't any marxist government right? "If Marx was truly interested in transferring all power to the hands of the people, he would have been against federalism, which has heralded a new era of top down control and the further concentration of wealth in the hands of the few." Well he did. Communism's end goal is stateless and cashless. He forsore a future where democratic nations would be able to provide all the needs people would have. "Revolutionaries have been stunned to find themselves in opposition to the proletariat, who want to own their own stuff, teach their children their own values and live as they choose." Not really. Anti-vax nutters like yourself have always been around. You also have a vote. That's how democracy works. If you have enough voted then you aren't in opposition to anyone. "Instead, Marxists insist that the working class are domestic terrorists for objecting to deforming the election process, for reclaiming the right to guide their children's moral orientation, sexual development, and pathway to health." The election process is already deformed. It is wildly outdated and gives far too much power to small communities over the population as a whole. Why do you think Republicans stopped winning the popular vote? As for reclaiming rights, what about the children's rights? Are you saying we should be advocating for children to be controlled in their every decisions, from morality to healthcare, by their parents? If you beleive that then you are a crappy parent. "Current Establishment Power is marxist, marked by the usual despotic corruption, militarism, colonialism and abuse of power that has accompanied all previous applications of Marx's theories." I mean, at least we agree on the corruption in the US, even if you are ignoring the obvious corporate power and lobbying that causes it. "Marx himself was no moral example for a new utopian era. He was a tyrant and a parasite, living off his friend's sponsorship, kept a domestic slave whom he impregnated and threw out on the street, neglecting his children." Always nice to see you as a peddler of idle gossip.
1
@freyfaust6218 Marx isn't above criticism, but your criticisms are just not supported by anything. They are just rumors and gossip. Churchill was a smoking, drinking racist who starved India. Lincoln was fine for his time, although he was pushed into ending slavery, he probably would not hav without the succession. Nothing wrong with MLK. He even advocated for better wealth redistribution.
1
@freyfaust6218 Churchill wasn't a racist for believing that races exist, he was a racist for starving India, and openly advocated for colonialism so that the British could stop "great barbaric nations" from being a "menace". That being said, accepting that society views and treats people differently depending on the colour of their skin doesn't make you a racist, it makes you a realist. Racism isn't about some theory of race, these days it's about social constructs. The only cesspool is the likes of the Proud Boys on the right. Comparing them to people simply wanting to be treated equally is nuts.
1
@willnitschke God, this is such an ignorant take it's actually sad.
1
@freyfaust6218 "accepting that society treats people differently according to their skin... this is a tautology. A statement is not proof." Right, but it does. If you want me to post data on this I can, but honestly is there even a need? I could simply point to a single ripple of redlining that people are still facing in predominantly minority communities, which is they have far less funding for their schools, leading to worse education, leading to worse outcomes. Or I could point to the fact that Black individuals recieve prison sentences that are just over 19% longer for the same crimes when compared to White offenders. They are also 21% less likely to recieve non-government sponsored downward departure or variance (sentences lower than the minimum for a crime due to circumstances) and even when Black offenders did recieve those shortened sentences, they were still over 16% longer than White offenders. When accounting for violence in past criminal history the issue gets worse, with sentences not stretching 20% longer for Black offenders. Or I could talk about stop and frisk in NYC, where 23.8% of people are African-America, but 59% of stop and frisks were on Black individuals. Only 7% of stop and frisks in NYC were on White individuals in 2022, out of 15,102 stops. Back when stop and frisk was being used sunstantially more, like in 2011, there were 685,724 stops, of which 53% were black. If you were black in NYC in 2011 the chances of being stopped and frisked were about 1 in 6 in that year. Those numbers climb sunstantially if you were aged 14-24, with 51% of stops hitting that age group. Your chances of being stopped increase to over 100% if you are in that 11 year age group. This doesn't even touch on the various Black men and women held at gunpoint, followed and shot for simply existing, like: Ahmaud Arbery for jogging while Black. Philando Castile for driving while Black. Dijon Kizzee for cycling while Black. Breonna Taylor for sleeping while Black. This doesn't even account the numerous increases in traffic stops for Black individuals, and their disproportionately negative treatment by police. The Black community doesn't even trust doctors due to crap like the Tuskegee. And that doesn't even touch on the racism in how Black people are treated when they do go to the doctor. They are only half as likely to recieve opioid prescriptions compared to their White counterparts, allowing Black patients to exist in pain. Then we get into the underlying issues with medicine itself, where doctors are primarily trained to treat White patients, meaning specific conditions that affect people of different races more commonly are ignored more often. Misdiagnosis is more common due to this issue. And who can blame them, when clinical trials usually have no requirement for racial diversity. Then we get into things like mortgage loan algorithms, which have been shown to assign more risk to Black borrowers simply because of their skin colour when accounting for all other factors, leading to higher payments overall. This is all due to the algorithms being trained based on how loans were previously given out. They literally trained the system to be just as racist as the system that it was built on. Lenders were 80 percent more likely to turn down Black Applicants. But sure, the left are the racists for accepting the reality of racism in the modern day. Maybe open your eyes for once. Bonus points: https://youtu.be/Vg_LNrRp6Kk https://youtu.be/1WldZFy9Gzc https://youtu.be/-e3T3VHmEkg https://youtu.be/83WsgVnIQ8k https://youtu.be/ds4H5IIy3kY https://youtu.be/1PzraSeiXus https://youtu.be/ZuZohmgOa00 https://youtu.be/j9TCXvx7Ie4 https://youtu.be/nETuhwq1URI
1
@freyfaust6218 Got it, so you know I'm right now that I've shown multiple examples, but: 1. It could be worse and used to be worse. 2. Other countries are worse. 3. What about the left? All this while talking about the US, a nation that literally punished people for the colour of their skin, making them second class citizens. Like, I get that other nations did bad shit too, but that doesn't make bigotry suddenly go away in the US, a place where segregation only ended in 1965. Also funny you say the left are "the new Nazis" when I posted a bunch of right-wing videos of LITERAL NAZIS. Jesus dude. Get help.
1
@ExPwner Gotta love the right-wing "racism isn't a problem" crowd.
1
 @willnitschke Right, which is why I posted about a dozen examples of both specific and systemic racism.
1
 @willnitschke School funding. Oh look, an actual example of systemic racism.
1
@ExPwner Care to explain James?
1
@willnitschke But why is the money allocated that way? What historic system caused it to be allocated that way?
1
@ExPwner So no, you can't explain how school funding is no a product of systemic racism, despite it very clearly being a carryover from segregation.
1
@ExPwner I actually can, glad you asked. During segregation redlining means that neighbourhoods with even a single non-white resident were unable to recieve FHA loans. As such, over the course of around 30 years, White neighbourhoods became more affluent, which Black neighbourhoods tended to fall behind on home values. Combine this with the zoning of industrial buildings in historically Black areas and the funding of schools from catchment area property taxes, and you end up with dramatically less finding for Black schools. Shoot forward to 1965 and although segregation ends, the people don't all suddenly move homes. Black neighbourhoods are still black neighbourhoods, mostly due to economic disparities caused by these generations of oppression. Since schools in Black neighbourhoods are also lower on funds, Black children get worse educations, and Black adults end up struggling to go to college as a result. While this issue has slowly been corrected over time, the simple truth is that education levels in Black communities are still the lowest in the nation. The continued policy of funding schools using catchment area property taxes over a more fair country pooling system is both a holdover from redlining and segregation, and a blatantly racist policy that disproportiontely affects Black individuals due to generational poverty and historic racism. Was that enough for you, or do you want an even deeper dive? Like when they just straight up stole property from Black people, or refused low cost loans to Black WW2 veterans. Let me know when I've explained enough for you to understand the situation we are in. You're welcome for the history lesson by the way.
1
@ExPwner Literally all of it does. How dumb are you?
1
@ExPwner Nope, it's just racism. Continuing to underfund neighbourhoods based on historic racial divides is racism.
1
@ExPwner It's not the outcomes that are the issue moron, it's the beginning.
1
@willnitschke Wrong conversation dude. This was about racially disproportionate school funding.
1
@willnitschke Oh well, since you are obviously the expert on systemic racism I'll just take your word for it.
1
@ExPwner How? Explain how a system that actively disadvantages Black Americans is not racist.
1
@ExPwner "Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is defined as policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organization and that result in and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race." It's literally the definition.
1
@ExPwner Ignoring it isn't going to make it go away James. This sort of fragile mentality is peak ignorance. Also love calling me an NPC as you openly ignore a posted defintion to help you understand systemic racism.
1
@ExPwner Not understanding what systemic racism is makes you look like an NPC.
1
@ExPwner You didn't even address the point made. You're just reposting a script at this point.
1
@ExPwner "You didn’t have any point." The point was systemic racism. "You immediately equated different outcomes to racism" The issue isn't different outcomes. The issue is different inputs that result in different outcomes. If everyone had the same funding but specific communities still ended up with worse scores, then that's just some generational long term stuff that will sort itself out eventually. But when you specifically point to lower funding going IN, not the outcome, THAT is systemic racism. The system was designed to keep funding separate AND to keep funding lower. "got debunked and had the fallacy explained to you" Again, I gave you the definition of systemic racism. There is no fallacy. You debunked nothing other than the claim that you aren't an ignorant racist. "then you just parroted the same dumb line over again." And here was me thinking you could learn. Go back to upvoting your own sad comments and stay away from racial political theory. Next time it gets mentioned just nod your head and leave.
1
@ExPwner Nope, it's a point. It fits the definition.
1
@ExPwner Oh, so now James has a new magical definition of systemic racism. Lay it on us James.
1
@ExPwner Wonderful, so what is your definition of racism. We using Websters again?
1
@ExPwner Lol, you went and read the definition didn't you 🤣 😂 Yes, the definition of racism is relevant in a discussion about systemic racism.
1
@ExPwner So what is it, can you not quote it?
1
@ExPwner Aww, James is getting defensive because he knows we both read the same thing. Here, allow me: Racism 2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another Can't wait for you to try and twist this to mean something else lol
1
@ExPwner Lol, I didn't. Infact I said it's not different outcomes several times. Glad you learned something today.
1
@ExPwner So you still don't understand systemic racism.
1
@ExPwner It matches the definition kid. That's all the proof I need.
1
@ExPwner "Racism 2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another." Would you like to know one of the examples given? "Discriminatory housing practices, redlining neighborhoods, underfunded education , lack of access to healthcare, racial profiling, police brutality and mass incarceration are just a few examples of cage wires that all together contribute to structural racism." See, racism. So don't give me that "unequal outcomes" bullshit. It's unequal beginnings you lying prick.
1
@ExPwner Jesus James, can you seriously not read? You making things up to ignore the definition of racism is your own issue.
1
@ExPwner Deflecting I see. Is this because your precious dictionary has betrayed you?
1
@ExPwner "Racism 2a: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another." Would you like to know one of the examples given? "Discriminatory housing practices, redlining neighborhoods, underfunded education , lack of access to healthcare, racial profiling, police brutality and mass incarceration are just a few examples of cage wires that all together contribute to structural racism." See, racism. So don't give me that "unequal outcomes" bullshit. It's unequal beginnings you lying prick.
1
@ExPwner So glad you can ignore dictionary definition, the exact thing you constantly harp on about. Tell you what James, tell me how YOU define racism. Oh, and the funding issue isn't about the outcome, it's about the input. If they had the same funding, but still had different outcomes, THEN we can talk, but the funding is the input.
1
@ExPwner Then please explain, because when the literal dictionary (your personal gauge of evidence) has an exact example of what I just explained under the definition that I said it applies to, what exactly do you want?
1
@ExPwner The proof is that the definition literally points to exactly what I said. Sorry English isn't your first language.
1
 @ExPwner So you now disagree with your longstanding claim that you can define socialism using a dictionary? Since it isn't evidence of anything.
1
 @ExPwner xcept I already showed it exists. I even explained the mechanisms. You stomped your feet and claimed it wasn't real racism.
1
@ExPwner So you just missed the part about redlining causing current day funding discrepancies for schools?
1
 @ExPwner School funding is the input dummy. I already explained that.
1
@ExPwner Nope. Funding is the input. Education is the result. Uneven beginning leading to uneven ends.
1
Tell me about it. James here has such an ego that any perceived slight is met with insults. Really piss him off and he makes a video about your comments where he openly insults you in the title. He's been coming to this video for years to just whine like a child and simp for big business over all else. He hates environmental protections, worker's rights, andwelfare programs, as well as anything else that protects people from businesses, instead advocating for a model of maximising GDP over everything else. He thinks taxes are theft, and doesn't even believe in human rights. He hates democracy, and instead opts for a system of allowing businesses to trample everyone with money. I'm sorry you have to deal with comments from this egotistical manchild.
1
@ExPwner Name the lie.
1
@ExPwner So you can't actually point to where your position was misrepresented. Again, name the lie. I mean if this is libertarianism, not believing anything at all, then you nailed it.
1
@ExPwner You have yet to show the lie.
1
@ExPwner This is just sad.
1
@ExPwner Very sad. Get help.
1
@ExPwner Uh huh... Still waiting on the lie. Video 1 is you not understanding that not all squares are rectangles. So while production is done with labour, labour is not necessarily production. Video 2 is literally just your actual viewpoint with the depressing real world conclusions therein, then me pointing out you strawman the socialist position relentlessly. Video 3 is just facts start to finish. I don't see a single thing there that even remotely contradicts anything you have ever said. Video 4 is pointing out that you keep calling me a liar, but haven't actually pointed to specific points I made that you claim are lies. You keep just going "you lied" without actually explaining where or how. You are so scared of presenting your actual stance because you just want to whine about socialism while never having to defend your position. The thing is James, we've talked for more than long enough for me to know where you stand. So not really sure what you were hoping for, but I was right, this is just sad for you. Oh sorry, I fotgot the saddest part, you downvoting all my comments. You know what doesn't do anything right? Good luck with those 3 million short views in 90 days though.
1
@ExPwner Already have, you're an ancap, or are you not any more?
1
@ExPwner Literally everything I said is true of most ancaps.
1
 @willnitschke Will is rattled, he doesn't even know the difference between "your" and "you're". I sure hope he doesn't "loose" the plot.
1
 @ExPwner Yeah it is. Stop running from your own beliefs.
1
@ExPwner Then name what I said that was not correct.
1
@ExPwner No, you didn't. You have yet to point to a specific thing that I said that as wrong.
1
@ExPwner So no answer, again. Oh, and the points are from years of speaking to you, it's not from ignorance. The funny part is you could fix all this by stating your "actual" position, but you haven't.
1
@willnitschke You're describing James again.
1
@ExPwner Show me the quote.
1
@ExPwner None of them do, but thanks.
1
Not supporting human rights is wrong. People dying in gutters from preventable diseases is wrong. Contributing to the better of society as a collective is just how stuff works.
1
 @mikevanover1721 Imagine how many people would NOT be helped without government programs that currently help to lift millions out of poverty.
1
@mikevanover1721 That's just grand delusion. Programs that give people healthcare, food and housing are the exact opposite of keeping people in poverty.
1
@mikevanover1721 You don't need to earn human rights. Thinking like that is fascistic and disgusting. These programs do not keep people poor. Social mobility is lower in nations with less programs like this. Forcing poor people to pay for healthcare and housing just keeps them in a constant state of poverty, or forces them to go homeless or without proper medical treatment. The "huge commission" you are referring to is called business. Businesses profit off people all the time.
1
@mikevanover1721 Well, few things. 1. Taxation is a societal agreed upon payment. If you don't like it, convince everyone to vote in politicians that stop it. Asking for your personal opinion to be put higher than everyone else is just stupid. 2. Governments have a responsibility to provide positive human rights. Things like food, housing and healthcare don't stop being human rights just because you're upset. 3. Life is why these people are poor. Aside from people struck by illness or injury, there are also all the people who struck out in life. You can't blame the government when someone on minimum wage gets hit by a car, can't pay the hospital bills, and is forced to lose their job, resulting in bankruptcy.
1
@mikevanover1721 It's not theft, it's a social contract. Society collective agrees to contribute based on a set of rules. Taking from that society, the society that has allowed you to work and make money, while refusing to contribute, just makes you a parasite. Yes, the government has a responsibility to provide and guarantee human rights. I'm actually shocked that of all the parts of that example you could review, it was minimum wage. Again, as I was explaining, it's not the government's fault when life kicks people when they're down, but the government does have a responsibility to provide a safety net. Advocating for lower paid work is just a recipe for more poverty. What is it with you libertarians and rape? You know that's illegal BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT right? And no, it would be a violation of someone's human rights, therefore it would not be okay.
1
@mikevanover1721 So you agree that people dying in poverty is wrong, but you refuse to actually do anything about it. Great, thanks Mike, you utter pillock.
1
@mikevanover1721 Oh sure. The guy advocating for people to work for free isn't the parasite trying to leech off other people, but the government using taxes to give people healthcare, housing and food is just terrible. Minimum wage protects workers, just like a variety of other worker protections.Whining about having to pay people is the most garbage human parasitic shit ever. Government literally decides what is and isn't illegal, that's how laws work. Your fantasy land without a government would just result in a power vacuum, starting with massive violations of human rights, and ending with the best performing human rights abusers rising to the top to become dictatorial leaders. It would be a shit show.
1
@ExPwner Before the war on poverty was announced US poverty was over 17%. Since then it has never been over 15%, and in the decade after the announcement it dropped to just 11%. Try again.
1
 @ExPwner Your concept of human rights is death and poverty.
1
 @ExPwner The entirety of human history has taught up plenty about power vacuums. Arguing that any stateless nation would last is a joke.
1
@willnitschke Oh god, now you're a scientologist. I'd say I'm shocked, but let's be honest. Yes, the end goal communism would just never work. That is however only one form of socialism. Not all rectangles are squares Will.
1
 @willnitschke Again, not all rectangles are squares. The goals of any stateless ideology is doomed to fail.
1
@willnitschke But we were talking about laws, which are legal, not moral. You're just agreeing that a society without laws would be unethical, thereby making anarchy unethical. You don't know what a social contract is either. So you agree with wealth redistribution. Thanks. Now who controls and manages that process? What's funny is you don't think I would be in favour of income based wealth redistribution, or a negative income tax as I believe it was pitched. Giving people money without some sort of requirement is exactly what I have already advocated for.
1
@ExPwner It dropped for years after the change. It also provided human rights to millions. Oh, I forgot, you don't care about human rights.
1
@ExPwner Lol and lol. It flattened after dropping for years. Also, your stats don't show how those who remained in poverty improved. Extreme poverty has also since hit zero. Healthcare, food and housing are all human rights. It worked to provide all 3.
1
 @ExPwner It dropped years after. Gonna need your claim on extreme poverty there champ.
1
 @willnitschke I'm not the one who brought up a negative income tax. Sounds great, let's do that, and give money directly to those that need it.
1
 @willnitschke Friedman's idea to give money to the poor directly was a negative tax. You advocated for it without understanding it, ha, classic.
1
@ExPwner It's a simple fact James. If you give people food, housing and healthcare then they are no longer in extreme poverty. Thanks welfare.
1
@ExPwner "Just because a welfare program exists does not mean poverty declines." But it did, we saw that. Extreme poverty is also near zero.
1
@ExPwner So poverty levels did not drop after the establishment of the war on poverty? Because it looks like they very much dropped. It's also funny that you use this as yout starting points, as FDR added plenty of policies that tackled welfare, including Social Security and unemployment insurance. They also created a minimum wage. Yet here you are worrying about welfare in the 60s, when you have already openly shown that poverty dropped for years due to FDRs reforms.
1
@willnitschke Silly Willy. Doesn't understand what he was advocating for, then calls it a joke when someone explains that he just said he was in favour of mass wealth redistribution lol. FDR ended the greatest depression in history champ. He took office in 1933 at the absolute worst point of the depression, and turned it around every year he was in office. Now you're saying you're in favour of state mental health care and drug treatment centres. The policies write themselves.
1
 @ExPwner So unemployment didn't drop during FDR's presidency?
1
@willnitschke I'm not the one that advocated for negative tax. The worst part of the great depression was 1933. FDR lowered unemployment and poverty while in office. He was elected to a shit show and improved it. Try reading instead of posting bullshit.
1
 @ExPwner Lol, sure thing champ. Give me the stat that shows things got worse under FDR.
1
@willnitschke Yes, it does. Milton Friedman was talking about a negative tax with that comment, which he openly advocated for. Maybe learn the origins of quotes before trying to take them out of context. The 12 years after 1933 were an improvement. They saw less unemployment and less absolute poverty. Again, show the stats that things got worse as you claimed. Or are you just posting bullshit again?
1
 @ExPwner Lol, sure thing buddy.
1
@ExPwner The worst year of the great depression was the year FDR was elected. Every single year after that was less bad, thanks to policies that lowered unemployment and poverty levels. The war on welfare also lowered poverty levels, as you can very clearly see from the graphs showing a drop. Not sure why you don't except raw data as a source. Are you too simple?
1
@ExPwner The poverty graphs. Are you really incapable of looking it up?
1
@ExPwner Show the stats.
1
@ExPwner And? Any proof it would have continued to drop? Any proof it wasn't about to stop? And again, this completely ignores the lack of human rights for those in poverty. I know you don't give 2 shits about human rights or the poor, the facts speak for themselves. Programs like SNAP, TANF and other government assistance programs have kept millions from being forced into extreme poverty, and have provided human rights for those millions.
1
@willnitschke You're just describing wage slavery and even your recent support of chatel and indentured slavery.
1
@willnitschke The unemployment rate was highest in 1933. Pretending otherwise is just sad. GDP started growing after that thanks to FDR. Before FDR was elected there were literal poor marches of people without food. FDR provided food, ending the need for them. So thanks for providing nothing but lies.
1
@willnitschke Wage slavery is literally slavery. Taxes are not. The unemployment rate peaked in May 1933 at 25.6%. US GDP bottomed out at $57 Billion in 1933. The unemployment rate never went higher. The GDP never went lower. So why are you lying Will. Is it because you can't support your bullshit?
1
@ExPwner But poverty did drop. Are you confused? Oh, so if there was no minimum wage and a higher number of low skill workers than the economy demands, then you would be totally fine with companies paying people $2 an hour. After all, that's what the market says they are worth based on the current criteria.
1
@ExPwner It's not a red herring. Minimum wage was specifically designed to stop wage slavery. You said it's not a thing, I proved you wrong. Your comments on poverty have already been shown to be incorrect. It dropped, as did extreme poverty.
1
@ExPwner Except you very clearly commented claiming that wage slavery doesn't exist. You are obviously just confused by what I was replying to. Always nice when someone ignoring severe poverty cycles and the mechanisms that allow businesses to exploit those people tells me to "grow up". Must mean I'm getting under your skin by revealing yet another one of life's vicitims of capitalism. Poverty dropped, not sure what else you want to say. Are you claiming that poverty did not drop?
1
@ExPwner But it does exist. It's a very researchable subject James. Just because it shows a very blatant issue with your worldview, most notably the power imbalance between employers and employees, doesn't means it's not real.
1
@ExPwner Yeah it does, I already proved it does. Now you are stuck being confused on what labourers do.
1
@willnitschke FDR inherited a shitstorm. The worst year of the great depression was the year FDR was elected, and every year there after was an improvement.
1
@ExPwner Oh dear, circlejerking your alts again? When will you learn Jimmy?
1
@willnitschke Considering how long it takes to fix economies, especially ones completely broken like during the Great Depression, it's not exactly shocking it took a while to fix. Inheriting a dumpster fire and being able to leave office with a good economy is the sign of a good president. When FDR took office manufacturing had fallen 47%, and during his presidency there was a severe drought. The idea that you think FDR did poorly is just sad. He was elected 4 times for a reason.
1
 @willnitschke But FDR ended the recession. GDP was growing you idiot. Do you not know what a recession is?
1
@willnitschke Kinda leaving out WW2 there champ. He balanced the budget in 1938. Also funny you call it the most debt in history as the US only started adding debt in 1929. It's also funny you talk about inflation, because prices dropped from 1929 after the crash, not returning to previous levels until the US joined the war. From 1929 to 1941 there was a 14% drop in CPI. But I'm not exactly shocked at this lack of knowledge from the man who thought the great depression was some sort of 12 year recession lol. You really are good for a laugh, aren't you Will.
1
@ExPwner "FDR did not end the recession." Well lets take a look shall we: From 1929 to 1933 the US was in recession, with the economy shrinking about 27%. From 1933 to 1937 the economy grew year over year a total of 43%, larger than in 1929 before the crash. From 1929 to 1933 unemployment rose from 3.2% to 25.2%. From 1933 to 1937 unemployment dropped from 25.2% to 14.3%. Since we can see from the more recent financial crash in 2008 that GDP recovery is much faster than unemployment recovery, this seems perfectly on par for a normal crash. What's more, by 1937 the economy has no deficit. So I don't know about you, but when the economy grows, that's the end of a recession. Maybe try not lying next time.
1
@ExPwner "FDR did not end the recession." Literally proved that FDR ended the recessions using exact years and percentage changes in the economy. "none of it backed up your stupid claim" I mean, really James, what planet are you on? No wonder you quit your job as a CPA, there's no way in hell you didn't royally fuck up over and over given you inability to understand something as simple as a recession.
1
@ExPwner I showed it with stats. The economy shrank until FDR took office, where is quickly started growing again, becoming larger than it was before the recession in just 4 years. Fact. FDR ended the recession. Fact.
1
 @ExPwner My stats proved you wrong. Your idiotic claim otherwise is just sad.
1
@willnitschke It overcame the contraction. Unemployment improved. There was no mass stimulus, programs were almost entirely paid for, and the budget was very balanced. Only morons think FDR, the guy elected FOUR time, was a bad president. Wildly popular, great for the people, great for the economy, and they all knew it.
1
@ExPwner The private sector that crashed and left millions without food or housing? Okay buddy. And again, GDP rose to higher than 1929 under FDR. And yes, you are describing jobs. Infrastructure is also a solid investment.
1
 @ExPwner It literally did happen. Are you really this clueless about the Great Depression?
1
@willnitschke GDP was at the highest point in history in 1937, so not sure why you think that's catastrophic. Maybe you got confused and meant to say fantastic. Unemployment was recovering, but as we have learned from the 08 crash, job recovery takes time. Why do you hate people so much that you reject their need for human rights?
1
@ExPwner Stop denying history.
1
@ExPwner So youdeny the GDP stats?
1
@ExPwner And you're wrong. In fact government spending adds far more to GDP than the spending itself. It is also paid for by taxes, meaning they are reinvesting. The idea that you can't count it is just silly as the money was removed then readded.
1
@ExPwner "Government spending does not add more than its cost." Yes it does. Things like new roads and rails stimulate the economy, adding more to GDP than was removed by taxes.
1
 @ExPwner No it doesn't. The fact that you believe that is sad. GDP increases far more from solid investment in infrastructure.
1
 @ExPwner You haven't proven shit.
1
@willnitschke Who said anything about current debt? You are also assuming all government spending is on infrastructure, which is absolutely not the case. You even acknowledge this when talking to James, then still think it's a valid point to make for some reason. Governemnt debt to GDP has increased and decreased in the past, so your point is meaningless.
1
@ExPwner Do you not understand the difference between deficit and total debt? Hell, even Will admitted that infrastructure spending would result in increased GDP.
1
@ExPwner Depends on the infrastructure. Most infrastructure being proposed is to repair old projects, projects that already increased the GDP from their creation. Repairing them is not going to increase GDP, because it already did. New projects however create far more than they cost, or that businesses would generate as they have no means to pay for them to improve GDP to the area. And if they did they would have a monopoly on that area. It's a total mess.
1
@ExPwner Which has its own issues. What if you need to build a bridge in an exceptionally poor community? How do you pay for it? Oh right, you put an expensive toll on a road used by people with very little, essentially taxing the poor even more. What happens when they just can't afford it? Oh right, the capitalist in charge decides it's not profitable and doesn't build it.
1
@ExPwner Because to a libertarian all that matters is money. You failed to address multiple points, including the infrastructure that private business would never build, the infrastructure maintainence not increasing GDP as it already did so, and the ability of government to negotiate to save money and lower costs. So, I short, James is wrong. Rule 1 all over again.
1
Right up until the fascists killed them.
1
@willnitschke Again, fascists. Did you not catch that part?
1
@willnitschke That's so dumb it could only have come from TIK. We've been over that nonsense, it's completely contradictory. First he claims the expansion of private property was socialism. Then he claims the destruction of the unions was socialism. To cap it all off, he calls the murdering of actual socialists socialism. The Nazis were many things, but socialist was not one of them.
1
@willnitschke Socialist policies like? I've already debunked this nonsense they sold off government assets, destroyed unions and murdered socialists. So please, regale me with whatever leaked out of your brain.
1
@willnitschke No, they sold off assets to private individuals that supported the party. That's not themselves. They didn't have 1 party representing the workers. They ended union's ability to collectively bargain, negotiate and strike. They weren't unions any more. But keep dreaming. So they weren't socialists because they did nothing that socialists do. Weird you keep asking dumb questions though. Always nice to see Will's quirk of the month.
1
@willnitschke Members of the party numbered millions of people. They were not state employees. No, the unions were nothing. They were worthless. What we disagree about is I'm talking about reality and you're making up nonsense.
1
@willnitschke Government assets were SOLD openly to party MEMBERS. Nothing about that is socialism. Stop making things up Will, it's embarrassing for all of us.
1
 @willnitschke I can read your lies 100 times, they'll still be wrong.
1
 @willnitschke You want a list? We'd be here all year Will.
1
@willnitschke Hang on, just collating a few years of your bullshit.
1
 @willnitschke Oh Will, you're still here. I was working on it but it crashed the server. Gonna need a few weeks. Do me a favour and try not to post as to not add to the load.
1
 @willnitschke I did say we'd be here all year Will. Take your time.
1
 @ExPwner They did explanation private property and destroy unions. Stop ignoring facts.
1
 @willnitschke Ah yes, all those socialists that sold off state assets....
1
 @willnitschke Wrong, but nice try.
1
@ExPwner They did both. Privately owned business expanded under Nazi Germany as they sold off government assets to fund their way through the crash, then massive upscaling of their military. Tell me though James, what do you think the function of a union is?
1
@ExPwner Yes they did. There is plenty of evidence that private ownership increased under the Nazis. They sold off banks, public works and more. There is plenty of evidence to show a lower overall revenue from publicly owned entities. Any reason why they sold a bunch of stuff, but you still say they had more means of production owned?
1
@willnitschke You're conflating government ownership with the selling off of government assets to people friendly with the government. They were private owners, the assets were privately owned, profits were private, ownership remained private after the Nazis were gone. Are you in the room with me? No, I don't think you are.
1
@willnitschke You've conflated the two again, meaning now you're just straight up lying. Government did not aquire assets, they sold them. When governments sell their assets to private individuals, that's the opposite of nationalisation. It is in fact privatisation, a term literally coined to explain Nazi Germany.
1
 @willnitschke No, it's not socialist at all. Weird you talk about no exchange of money. Private individuals were not gifted these government assets, they purchased them.
1
@ExPwner Yes it did. Private ownership INCREASED under Nazi Germany. They sold off local public utilities, stakes in multiple large banks, United Steel, shipping lines, ship building, and social services such as the Winter Help. Sweezy, 1941 wrote about reprivatization: "‘reprivatization’…. The practical significance of the transference of government enterprises into private hands was thus that the capitalist class continued to serve as a vessel for the accumulation of income.” Your confusion is that you don't understand that capitalism is about private ownership of the means of production, and that free markets are not a necessary requirement. While you personally subscribe to a free market capitalist perspective, capitalism is still only the private ownership part. State capitalism is where the state controls the markets, creating a planned economy with capitalistic ownership of the means of production.
1
 @willnitschke You really have nothing to contribute do you?
1
@ExPwner Juat posted the source idiot. Try reading.
1
@ExPwner You mean like The Structure of the Nazi Economy written by Maxine Yaple Sweezy Woolston in 1941? Do you not know how to read sources? It should also be noted that while businesses were heavily regulated, they were still privately owned, and profits were still private. For example: "Beneath these headlines the reader will find many facts and figures designed to prove their truth, figures relating to the scarcity of workers, the increase in production, the rise in building activity, the rise in profits. These figures, upon analysis, prove to be largely correct" "Krupp's firm profited more from the armament boom than any other industrial enterprise in Germany." What's funny is as you read, you realise that nothing in there disagrees with me, it's just some dude complaining about government overreach, but that really isn't a far cry from corporations in any capitalistic market. The mere mention of profits means it's private business, which Reimann freely acknowledges. So thanks kid.
1
@willnitschke It's neither, it's state capitalism. Industry was privately owned, as James's source stated.
1
@willnitschke Worker cooperatives are common ownership, not private or state.
1
@ExPwner TIK's own sources prove him wrong, as I just showed you.
1
@ExPwner You're living with the faeries mate. TIK's various sources all disagree with his claims, and the only reason he claims otherwise is he redefines terms when explaining the evidence. According to TIK and yourself the massive increase of government assets being sold off into private hands was actually socialism, even though the means of production were privately owned. You claim this because the Nazis had a planned economy, however planned economies are not inherently socialistic, this is just your own interpretation and makes absolutely no sense historically. As for TIKs sources, I already posted quotes showing that businesses were still private, and therefore capitalist. TIK even disregards and rewords evidence to suit his agenda, claiming that the word "privatization" to describe the Nazi economy was incorrect, and claiming that his sources were wrong to use the word Fascism to describe Nazi Germany. His own bias shines through over and over throughout the video, and you eat it up because it's your bias as well. So stop believing the lying YouTube and try thinking for once.
1
@willnitschke Common ownership is not the same as having lots of capitalist owners. With worker cooperatives for example you are required to be a member, and employee-owner. You can't buy your way in.
1
@willnitschke Cooperative employees are called members. Employees in capitalist companies are not capitalists, they are workers. Yes, owner-operated businesses are both privately owned, and owned by people taking 100% of the products of their own labour. Congrats, you figured it out. It's not that socialism is capitalism, it's that in these specific single employee owner-operted scenarios there are no additional employees that could be exploited. Add a single employee and see how the system manages, but just 1 person cannot exploit the labour of others as there are no others to exploit. Glad you learnt that on your own.
1
@ExPwner Even if your total compensation were accurate (even though it ignores the wildly inflating medical costs and the falling worth of health insurance compensations due to the cycle of care costs) it also ignores the gap in wages, and that many jobs don't even offer healthcare. Those at the bottom have been stagnant for decades.
1
@ExPwner Actually they do. Listed costs are not what anyone pays. The continuous rise is due to lack of competition for a need. You also lack a true understanding of the true value of insurance. Also, thanks for yet again ignoring low wage earners as it doesn't fit your narrative.
1
@ExPwner Wrong, the cost of specific procedures changes for people with and without insurance, an with different kinds of insurance. Wrong, the cost would not continue to go up if most people couldn't pay. The sharp rise on the market is a squeeze on the lower class. There is no reason for costs to increase like this other than corporate greed. At the macro level healthcare costs go up a lot faster in the nation with private health insurance and private care, making your claim nonsense. And again, you dodged the point on wage disparity.
1
@ExPwner Yeah it is. You have to use the same definition. Even if you call your definition the "correct" one it doesn't change the fact that you are attacking a theory using an equivocation fallacy.
1
@willnitschke I'm sorry Will, allow me to make it even clearer for you. Let's say James is attacking the concept of "light". Now a Marxist might say "a feather is light". James might come along and say "but not that feather, it's dark, checkmate Marxism". If you're still following then you've already done better than you did earlier. Let me know if you need a deeper explanation of an equivocation fallacy.
1
 @ExPwner No James, it's called equivocation. I even explained it to you. Again, calling something the "actual" definition defeats the purpose.
1
 @willnitschke Didn't know you were a Communist, but that's nice dear.
1
 @ExPwner Corrected what? Seriously, you've lost the plot.
1
@willnitschke I did like when you likened a voice in my head to a conscience, implying that you don't have one, supporting my prior psychopathy theory.
1
 @willnitschke Is the psychopath trying to learn again?
1
@willnitschke Calling a spade a spade is not an insult Will. More gaslighting though. You really have nothing to offer do you. I hit a nerve didn't I. Poor Will.
1
 @willnitschke Wow, I really did hit a nerve. You've been on this gaslighting spin for a whole 2 days at this point.
1
@willnitschke I don't know what's sadder. That you're still going on this weird rant because you got called out so hard it hurt your feelings and made you act like a massive cunt, or that James is still reading these and upvoting them. Really shows how much of a class act you two are.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, it does not have to be authoritarian. If people democratically elect a government that outlaws capitalistic ownership then that is not authoritarianism. In fact authoritarian rule is the exact opposite of democracy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Exploiting other people's labour is not a right. Nice try.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Socialism doesn't affect free expression, free assembly, private property or free contract. It bans the exploitation of labour. If you want to start your own business and work as a contractor then you are free to do that. Capitalism however bans free expression within workplaces, bans free assembly of union workers, bans ownership to people's own work, and restricts worker freedoms within a contract negotiated under duress.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So let me get this straight, the UN, of which the Soviet Union was a founding member, wrote a declaration of human rights specifically to stop the Soviet Union? Yeah, makes perfect sense 👌
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Imagine thinking worker collectivism is a form of capitalism. Unions are literally in opposition to capitalism. You are taking credit for unions, which over the years have been actively attacked by capitalists. What a joke.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 The convensions for human roots were written to stop fascism. If you really want to use a country like modern day Russia or the US to expouse a view of modern human rights then I suggest looking into which human rights those nations fail to uphold. The US for example can't even resist torturing and enslaving people on a regular basis.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Can't wait for you to tell me that unions are authoritarian, but capitalism companies that give workers absolutely no say are somehow not authoritarian in nature.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Authoritarianism is a term regarding democracy. Exploiting people is not a human right. Neither Lenin's government nor his attempts at labour board were democratic in nature. They gave workers too little power and were just state dictated authoritarian systems, similar to any privately controlled business. As I have explained to you, capitalism regularly exploits people, which I would argue is a human rights violation. Never seen a worker cooperative "brutally punished the public" but I have seen capitalist businesses murder workers to stop unions.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Capitalism is authoritarian. Unions are democratic socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Unions are how workers even out the playing field AGAINST capitalists, not within capitalism. Syndicalism is a form of socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "unions are an old fashioned labor relations which is capitalism" False. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production. Unions do not own means of production, and are not private entities. They are collective entities. "socialist theory involves the unification and not division of labor" They are literally called UNIONS. In what way is that a division? Not only that, but many socialist theories are built off the idea of mass-unionisation of the workforce. Collectivist anarchism or syndicalism would be 2 such examples. "Authoritarianism refers to abrogation of autonomy and not democracy." False. Democracy and authoritarianism are direct opposites. Any element of authoritarianism is at the cost of democracy. Authoritarianism is specifically the errosion of democracy, and a forced adherance to state rule rather than democratic rule. In fact the word authoritianism literally comes from the Latin auctor, meaning master or leader, a ruler not bound by laws or opposition. This is a direct opposite to democracy, which has leaders bound by the people, by laws and by constitutional decisions. "Personal freedom refers to autonomy." Personal freedoms are not human rights. I have the personal freedom to decide if I want eggs for breakfast or if I want porridge. But there is not universal human right to eggs or oats. "Democracy is enfrinchisement, representation or mandate, but it is not personal nor freedom. That's a reference to human rights" Democracy is literally listed as a human right. "Unions are capitalist because they are all private companies" False. Unions are neither capitalist nor companies. Unions are collectively owned by the workers that they represent, making them not privately owned but collectively owned, and are organisations of workers not private businesses. The legal designation is entirely different. "It has to be central and unilateral to be collective" False. An economy made up of worker cooperatives would be both decentralised and collective. Collectivist anarchism would be decentralised and collective. "In the United States, the federal government evened this playing field with unionists resisting." Capitalists have resisted every single action to improve worker pay, safety and rights throughout all of human history. Unions were the ones that pushed public opinion enough to increase popularity on worker conditions and worker pay, pushing government to make that change. In what universe would unions resist those changes? "Capitalism is a pluralist approach instead of the unilateral democratic approach which socialists propose." Unions are literally democratic. But thanks for admitting that democratic government actions are also socialism and socialism requires democracy. "United States features the highest job satisfaction and highest median wages of any developed nation." So we're back to lying. Cool. We already established that Randstad has some serious issues with their methodology. Meanwhile, more comprehensive surveys taken from individual countries, such as Pew Research, The Conference Board, Adecco France, Lanes Group Careers and more from specific countries show the US in a much less flattering light. So all in all I don't think you actually know what socalism is. I suggest doing some actual research before spouting off again.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Unions are private" False, they are collective, not private. "competitive corporations" False, they are not corporations. "which allocate the labor component" False, they do not allocate labour. Workers are employed then join a union. While unions can help fight for a labourers rights, they are not allocating labour anywhere. " in addition to them being developed by anti-socialists" Nonsense. Again, plenty of socialists are in favour of mass-unionisation. "they are private enterprise everywhere in the capitalist world" Much to the dismay of capitalists, who spent generations trying to destroy unions. "They don't exist in the socialist world" Again, see collectivist anarchism and syndicalism. "Unions are separated by trades and they are competitive with one another." Trades do not compete with one another. A tiler is not competing with a brick layer, they do entirely different jobs. "Labor front was developed by Marx and joins all trades to one union." You get that there are more socialists than just Marx right? "Personal freedoms refer to human rights" As I have already explained, no it does not. Choosing what I have for breakfast is a personal freedom, but I don't have a right to eggs or bacon. "Specifically socialist theory abrogates the personal freedoms which are recorded in UNCHR as human rights" False, as explained already. "By providing protection for these, a society is guaranteed to be capitalist" False. As has been explained, a model based on worker cooperatives would not violate any human rights. "As soon as these rights are provided, authoritarianism is abolished." False. The only right that deals with authoritarianism is number 21, the right to take part in government IE democracy. "Socialist political economy is authoritarian" False. "allocation of te means of production, democratically or not, so democratic workplaces in Russia were authoritarian" Nothing you said here makes a single bit of sense. "huma rights were the only aspect of the 1991 soviet referrendum which altered political economy" Wait, you think current day Russia isn't authoritarian? "Present the citeable source which proposes the political science term "authoritarian" relates to democracy rather than human rights." The literal definitions of the words. Also, a authoritarian government that does not restrict human rights, other than the right to democracy, would still be authoritarian. "American unions were established for segregation" Total nonsense. The first unions was in the 1700s. "They resisted the FLSA on the principle of unionism" False. SOME unions resisted the FLSA because it did not encompass all industries. In fact it actively excluded some insustries. I imagine unions that represented those industries felt pretty upset about it. Of course who actually resisted the FLSA. Oh right, literally every capitalist business. "Authoritarianism is not about democracy. United States had democracy, but in the south, socialist theory like that of socialist George Fitzhugh denied capitalism to my ancestors - specifically they were denied private property, free assembly, free expression, and free contract." Multiple issues here: 1. The US did not have democracy. Aside from the fact that only men who owned land could vote, that also actively excluded, as you said, your ancestors. If the entire democracy is reliant on about 30% of the total adults within that population then it isn't a democracy at all. 2. George Fitzhugh was not a socialist, he was a sociologist. In fact he wrote "We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism" 3. Your ancestors were literally privately owned capital owned by capitalists. Capitalists actively owned the labour means of production by owning your ancestors. This practice was stopped by government, not by capitalism. "It is illegal for Norway to regulate a minimum wage" Not sure you understand how Norway works. Unions negotiate a minimum wage collectively. The reason they don't want a government minimum wage as it would make their socialist collective bargaining less strong. "Personal freedoms refers to rights with no mention of democracy" Wrong, as explained.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Unions are private" False, they are collective, not private, and this is the last I'll bother replying to this tired claim. "competitive corporations" False, they are not corporations. Again, not replying to this nonsense again. "which allocate the labor component" False, they do not allocate labour. Workers are employed then join a union. While unions can help fight for a labourers rights, they are not allocating labour anywhere. "in addition to them being developed by anti-socialists" Nonsense. Again, plenty of socialists are in favour of mass-unionisation. I gave specific examples to this which you did not respond to. "they are private enterprise everywhere in the capitalist world" Much to the dismay of capitalists, who spent generations trying to destroy unions. "They don't exist in the socialist world" Again, see collectivist anarchism and syndicalism. Until you can respond to these points your argument is moot. "Unions are separated by trades and they are competitive with one another." Trades do not compete with one another. A tiler is not competing with a brick layer, they do entirely different jobs. "Labor front was developed by Marx and joins all trades to one union." You get that there are more socialists than just Marx right?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Personal freedoms refer to human rights" As I have already explained, no it does not. Choosing what I have for breakfast is a personal freedom, but I don't have a right to eggs or bacon. "Specifically socialist theory abrogates the personal freedoms which are recorded in UNCHR as human rights" False, as explained already. "By providing protection for these, a society is guaranteed to be capitalist" False. As has been explained, a model based on worker cooperatives would not violate any human rights. "As soon as these rights are provided, authoritarianism is abolished." False. The only right that deals with authoritarianism is number 21, the right to take part in government IE democracy. "Socialist political economy is authoritarian" False. Socialism is by definition democratic, as you have already admitted. "allocation of te means of production, democratically or not, so democratic workplaces in Russia were authoritarian" Nothing you said here makes a single bit of sense. "huma rights were the only aspect of the 1991 soviet referrendum which altered political economy" Wait, you think current day Russia isn't authoritarian?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Present the citeable source which proposes the political science term "authoritarian" relates to democracy rather than human rights." The literal definitions of the words. Also, a authoritarian government that does not restrict human rights, other than the right to democracy, would still be authoritarian. "American unions were established for segregation" Total nonsense. The first unions was in the 1700s. "They resisted the FLSA on the principle of unionism" False. SOME unions resisted the FLSA because it did not encompass all industries. In fact it actively excluded some insustries. I imagine unions that represented those industries felt pretty upset about it. Of course who actually resisted the FLSA. Oh right, literally every capitalist business. Meanwhile many unions applauded the new laws. "United States had democracy" The US did not have democracy. Aside from the fact that only men who owned land could vote, that also actively excluded, as you said, your ancestors. If the entire democracy is reliant on about 30% of the total adults within that population then it isn't a democracy at all. The US has instead become more democratic through the centuries. "but in the south, socialist theory like that of socialist George Fitzhugh denied capitalism to my ancestors" George Fitzhugh was not a socialist, he was a sociologist. In fact he wrote "We treat the Abolitionists and Socialists as identical, because they are notoriously the same people, employing the same arguments and bent on the same schemes. Abolition is the first step in Socialism" "specifically they were denied private property, free assembly, free expression, and free contract." Your ancestors were literally privately owned capital owned by capitalists. Capitalists actively owned the labour means of production by owning your ancestors. This practice was stopped by government, not by capitalism. "It is illegal for Norway to regulate a minimum wage" Not sure you understand how Norway works. Unions negotiate a minimum wage collectively. The reason they don't want a government minimum wage as it would make their socialist collective bargaining less strong.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Honestly, I would reply, but you are just repeating the same lies. The only really new points that need addressed are: "Unions are private, competitive corporations which allocate the labor component of the means of production" False. Unions do not allocate any labour, or own any labour, because workers do not work for unions, they are members of unions while still working at businesses. Unions represent workers to negotiate with businesses. "United States had democracy, but in the south, socialist theory like that of socialist George Fitzhugh denied capitalism to my ancestors" No, the US did not have democracy. Voting was heavily restricted to white male land owners. While things are better, the US still falls short of a true representative democracy. Also, George Fitzhugh also openly said that "Abolition is the first step in Socialism". Considering he was pro-slavery, it's odd to call him a socialist, especially when he was a sociologist. I know the words sound similar but try to keep up. "specifically they were denied private property, free assembly, free expression, and free contract." By capitalists. They were owned by capitalists who treated them as capital. "Russia were authoritarian and huma rights were the only aspect of the 1991 soviet referrendum which altered political economy" Wait, do you think modern day Russia is not authoritarian? "American unions were established for segregation" The first US union was in the 1700s, long long long before segregation. "They resisted the FLSA on the principle of unionism" Actually SOME unions resisted the FLSA because it specifically excluded some professions. Yet businesses were 100% against FLSA. "It is illegal for Norway to regulate a minimum wage" Because the minimum wage is negotiated between the collective union representation and businesses. Government getting involved with this process would erode the socialist union's ability to negotiate.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Unions are private, competitive corporations which allocate the labor component of the means of production" False. Unions do not allocate any labour, or own any labour, because workers do not work for unions, they are members of unions while still working at businesses. Unions represent workers to negotiate with businesses.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "United States had democracy, but in the south, socialist theory like that of socialist George Fitzhugh denied capitalism to my ancestors" No, the US did not have democracy. Voting was heavily restricted to white male land owners. While things are better, the US still falls short of a true representative democracy. Also, George Fitzhugh also openly said that "Abolition is the first step in Socialism". Considering he was pro-slavery, it's odd to call him a socialist, especially when he was a sociologist. I know the words sound similar but try to keep up.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "specifically they were denied private property, free assembly, free expression, and free contract." By capitalists. They were owned by capitalists who treated them as capital.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Russia were authoritarian and huma rights were the only aspect of the 1991 soviet referrendum which altered political economy" Wait, do you think modern day Russia is not authoritarian?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "American unions were established for segregation" The first US union was in the 1700s, long long long before segregation.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "They resisted the FLSA on the principle of unionism" Actually SOME unions resisted the FLSA because it specifically excluded some professions. Yet businesses were 100% against FLSA.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "It is illegal for Norway to regulate a minimum wage" Because the minimum wage is negotiated between the collective union representation and businesses. Government getting involved with this process would erode the socialist union's ability to negotiate.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "you claim that the Randstad is flawed" Wrong. I SHOWED that Randstad is flawed. Imagine using online surveys in a country like India where half the country doesn't even have access to the internet. Here: "We asked the most wealthy half of the country how they feel about their jobs, and 91% said they were satisfied". See how utterly stupendously mad that is? My suggestion was to use surveys within each individual country that can target a larger proportion of the population, cover more industries and not rely of self-selection and wealth bias to give more accurate results. Here's a question you utterly bigotted ethno-centric US nationalistic narcissistic hypocrite. Why would we use a US company to measure employee satisfaction in Europe, or India, or anywhere else that isn't the US?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Socialism made up of worker coops is a central decision" Irrelevant. The US outlawing slavery was a central decision that businesses cannot use own labour as capital. Does that make capitalism without legal slavery some sort of top-down hierarchy? When we outlawed feudalism did we make a "central decision", and is capitalism therefore a central top-down hierarchy? No, of course not, because changing the rules on how businesses are run is not the same as a centrally planned economy when the markets are still very much free.
1
@ExPwner Not taking any advise from the incel that thinks North Korea is a democracy. Jog on Jimmy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "slaves were used as labor and assets but not capital" This makes exactly zero sense. They were literally bought and sold. "The slave owners were mercantilist and not capitalist" False. They were capitalists. "Feudalism is not capitalism specifically in that capitalism is a broad economic enfranchisement concept proposing that paid serfs made nations wealthier than slaves." 1. Serfdom is still feudalism you absolute neaderthal. 2. Again, you are advocating for a "central decision" to end slavery. By your own logic, this is a centrally planned socialist system.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Fitzhugh was a socialist" Who openly opposed socialism and called abolition the first step towards socialism. Wow, I'm convinced. He also described socialists as subverting the social fabric, said that Abolitionists and Socialists as identical and promoted feudalism time and time again. Nothing about his position was socialism. "socialists like Marx for his irrational normative cases, racial class determinism, proposal that slavery for need is better than paid wages" Marx didn't propose that, so just a straight up lie.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "The point is that it was specifically capitalism which was denied to slaves" Um, no. It was a lot of human rights actually, including the literal right to not be held in slavery. "capitalist philosophy which ended state support for slavery on earth" False. Public support for abolition ended slavery. Capitalists were literal slave owners.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Assets can be bought and sold." Right, because they were treated as property to be bought and sold. They didn't even have to be used as labour. They were used as breeding stock, as objects, as animals, as toys. They were not treated as "labour-power" but as objects, as capital.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Allocation means setting price and quantity demanded for a commodity and labor unions set the price of labor and predetermined hours" False. Unions negotiate these numbers on behalf of workers, they do not set them. You are thinking of a company that contracts out labour. Members of unions are not labour that is contracted out to companies like GM. "Since you don't know what allocation" You don't know what a union is, what socialism is, what capitalism is or anything else it seems.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Paying serfs ends serfdom, Einstein." False. Plenty of serfs throughout history were paid. Serfdom didn't magically end when this happened. "Capitalism is a limitation on the state and not an exercise of power by the state." I agree there, and when the government limited slavery they also limited capitalism, since capitalists were slave owners. "under conditions of free contract, free assembly, free expression and private property. Only if these rights are guaranteed is there a private allocation." So if a nation has a free market, private ownership of the means of production, free expressions, but they ban union assembly, you would consider that a non-capitalist country? What about if they just ban painting? Is that still capitalist? Honestly, your definition is flawed to no end. "In socialist and other mercantilist theory like feudalism" This sentence is nonsensical. Not only is socialism not mercantilist, but neither is feudalism. Seriously, do you just pull this out of thin air? "these rights are limited to authoritarians who do all the economic allocation rather than it occurring broadly through broad guarantees of personal freedom." You're confusing authoritarianism with totalitarianism. This does in fact explain your previous errors. Authoritarians simply subvert democracy and remove power from the people to control the state, which I will note is not one of your listed freedoms meaning authoritarian capitalism is perfectly possible. Again, capitalism is just private ownership of the means of production. Socialism is common ownership of the means of production. That's it, really simple.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "the right to free contract is the right not to be held as a slave." Unfortunate isn't it that there is more than 1 type of capitalism. Free market capitalism works for you, but you have to admit that the slavers of the US were also capitalists. Socialism is also perfectly possible without disrupting the work, choose employment and recieve just compensation. "When I present the human rights that socialism abrogates and capitalism is based on, this goes right over your head because as a socialist, you have never looked into the topic of human rights." False. In fact socialism is by far the best way to achieve universal human rights. Arguable capitalism can never deliver on the promise of just compensation, since it is built on a model of profit, and compensation is always as little as the business can get away with rather than being "just". "For example, if you understood conventional human rights, you wou stfu because socialism is an open assault on private property." This is a misnomer. Socialism is an attack of the private ownership of businesses, not private property in general. Marx made the distinction of personal property to describe things simple owned by people, and private property to describe the ownership of the means of production. Human rights however deal with private property in regards personally owned things, not the means of production.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Capitalist philosophy and state support for it was what ended slavery." False. "American populists were actually who supported slavery "populism" was the approach of the Tammany Hall organization. They formed Democratic Party to give the people what they want and in the south, that was slavery" Which businesses ended slavery in the South? Oh right, they didn't, the democratic populism of the North ended slavery in the South, through government. It also ended slavery in the North. I also encourage you to look up the British Empire's changing position on slavery. As public support grew the government decided to take out a massive loan and buy and free every single slave in the empire, then actively patrolled the oceans to stop the entire slave trade permanently. Businesses didn't do this, elected officials did. Early support for the British abolition movement actually came from Quakers, a Protestant group who also pushed for prison reform policies. They worked all the way from the late 1700s to the abolition movement in the 1830s to end the practice. Taking their decades long achievement to build massive public support, sign hundreds of thousands of signatures, organise protests and far far more and boiling it down to "capitalist philosophy" is not just a lie, it's downright insulting.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "collective bargaining is specifically to allocate labor" Still false. They do not allocate labour as they do not decide labour hours and costs. They negotiate with businesses for these numbers. This is not the same thing. "Any doubt that unions bargain with other companies" They are not companies. "What type of political economy has a bunch of capitalists running companies" They are also not capitlist. Unions are not privately owned, but collectively owned by their members. "Does the union's juxtaposition to private enterprises mean that unions are a labor relations suited for capitalist political economy?" It means that unions are a socialist entity that actively fights against capitalist owners. "Unions started in the 19th century" False. Again, the first US union was in the 18th century, I already told you this. Of course you also ignore that unions existed long before this for centuries, but whatever. "It's 50 years later and they're nonexistent in the economies which have the highest job satisfaction and the best workplaces in the history of mankind." So we're just using failed statistics again. Do you ever learn a single thing? "Unions and democracy and class analysis are all stupid" I mean, outright admitting that you're pro-authoritarian does make this conversation easier. Why not just say you want an oligarchy. It would speed this whole charade along.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "marx calls for labor to be compensated with work vouchers rather than fungible pay" Because Marx literally didn't believe that money should exist. What good would money be when you have a system that literally gives everyone all the necessities they need? His entire philosophy was "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". In other words, free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services. "This constitutes slavery under the US 13th Amendment." Really confused you're bringing up the US Constitution for some reason. You could just use the UN declaration of human rights, or do you actually believe that the 13th Amendment of the US Constitution ended slavery?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "collective bargaining is specifically to allocate labor and that's the role unions play" Again, false. Collective bargaining is using the power of the collective workers to force companies to change their allocation of labour or risk losing their workers. Unions do not just decide how labour is allocated, they influence the decision makers. "Any doubt that unions bargain with other companies" Again, unions are not companies. They do not employ workers. Unions are organisations formed by a group of workers "Does the union's juxtaposition to private enterprises" The contrasting efforts being the capitalist businesses and the socialist unions. "Unions and democracy and class analysis are all stupid" Weird way to say you love authoritarianism and oligarchy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "A slave owner is a feudal economic participant." I really want to address this claim in more depth, as it shows an abject ignorance of what feudalism is. Under feudalism, all land is ultimately owned by the state. That state distributes management of land to lords (or landlords if you will), and those lords work that land using serfs. Under this system the presence of slavery is not what defines feudalism. The ability to own land and property is how we differentiate. In the US land was owned privately, not distributed by the state through lords. As such, US slavery was never feudalism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Businesses and unions only exist in capitalist political economies." This is just laughable false, and I have even schooled you on socialist theories that rely on unions. Market socialism also relies on free market enterprise. But keep lying, it really paints a picture.
1
@ExPwner Your inability to understand something doesn't change how much sense it makes.
1
@ExPwner Projection will get you nowhere kiddo.
1
@ExPwner Really hurt your feelings with that one didn't I James 🤣🤣🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Name socialist countries" There are no socialist countries. Socialism requires democracy, and the nations you mentioned are not democratic. "the feudal labor relations was slavery" Serfdom actually. Serfs were a part of the land, while slaves are considered property. It's a slight improvement where serfs are considered people and have at least some rights. "Even though United States was not a monarchy, the means of production was allocated on a feudal basis with landed gentry playing the feudal role of lords." It seems you missed the most important part, which is that land in a feudal system is allocated to lords by a monarch. The American gentry are not the same as lords because they could buy and sell their lands. Lords in feudal systems cannot do that without approval from their higher lord and technically they also do not own the land. It is a fief from the king, meaning they would actually be selling their title, not the land itself. "capitalism has its basis in exploiting labor-POWER" Glad we agree that capitalism is about exploitation. "Marx called for slavery" False. "My ancestors worked under coercion and only received attention to minimal needs" Nobody said minimal needs. I said "free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services". "By the state" Stop. There is no state in Marx's ideal world. "slavery condition via coercion of starvation" So capitalism... If you don't work in capitalism you starve. "Fungible pay for work" Again, there is no money in Marx's ideal world. "All slaves in history were abrogated a right to fungible pay." So we agree that serfs are not slaves, since many were paid. "You say that it is false that collective bargaining is specifically to set the allocation of labor" It is to force the allocator to make the allocation more preferable to workers. That's not the same thing as allocating labour. "If we agree on something or if you have learned something, if you made a mistake or misunderstanding of something, it's ok to admit it." I'm waiting for you to learn that unions aren't businesses, that employers allocate labour, and that Marx argued againt the very existence of both money and the state. Any day now I'm sure. "Instead of this basic honesty, you are spamming with disagreement" I'm starting to think you genuinely are not capable of learning. "Only capitalist labor power is allocated via "influence of decisionmakers"" Except, again, they are not allocating it, they are influencing the people that allocate it. You see the difference? "soviet workplace democracy used state force" That's just an oxymoron. Either they had workplace democracy or they didn't. In this case they didn't. In the case of multiple workplace democracies around the world in worker cooperatives the workers decide their own leadership and therefore influence the decisionmakers through democracy. It is a far more effective method of giving workers the ability to decide their own labour allocation. You're also telling on yourself since you already argues that unions are outdated, meaning you think the only mechanism workers have in a capitalist system to argue for their working conditions should be removed.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Name socialist countries" There are no socialist countries. Socialism requires democracy, and the nations you mentioned are not democratic. "the feudal labor relations was slavery" Serfdom actually. Serfs were a part of the land, while slaves are considered property. It's a slight improvement where serfs are considered people and have at least some rights. "Even though United States was not a monarchy, the means of production was allocated on a feudal basis with landed gentry playing the feudal role of lords." It seems you missed the most important part, which is that land in a feudal system is allocated to lords by a monarch. The American gentry are not the same as lords because they could buy and sell their lands. Lords in feudal systems cannot do that. "capitalism has its basis in exploiting labor-POWER" Glad we agree that capitalism is about exploitation.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Marx called for slavery" False. "My ancestors worked under coercion and only received attention to minimal needs" Nobody said minimal needs. I said "free access to and distribution of goods, capital and services". "By the state" Stop. There is no state in Marx's ideal world. "slavery condition via coercion of starvation" So capitalism... If you don't work in capitalism you starve. "Fungible pay for work" Again, there is no money in Marx's ideal world. "All slaves in history were abrogated a right to fungible pay." So we agree that serfs are not slaves, since many were paid.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "You say that it is false that collective bargaining is specifically to set the allocation of labor" It is to force the allocator to make the allocation more preferable to workers. That's not the same thing as allocating labour. "If we agree on something or if you have learned something, if you made a mistake or misunderstanding of something, it's ok to admit it." I'm waiting for you to learn that unions aren't businesses, that employers allocate labour, and that Marx argued againt the very existence of both money and the state. Any day now I'm sure. "Instead of this basic honesty, you are spamming with disagreement" I'm starting to think you genuinely are not capable of learning. "Only capitalist labor power is allocated via "influence of decisionmakers"" Except, again, they are not allocating it, they are influencing the people that allocate it. You see the difference? "soviet workplace democracy used state force" That's just an oxymoron. Either they had workplace democracy or they didn't. In this case they didn't. In the case of multiple workplace democracies around the world in worker cooperatives the workers decide their own leadership and therefore influence the decisionmakers through democracy. It is a far more effective method of giving workers the ability to decide their own labour allocation. You're also telling on yourself since you already argues that unions are outdated, meaning you think the only mechanism workers have in a capitalist system to argue for their working conditions should be removed.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "You say that it is false that collective bargaining is specifically to set the allocation of labor" It is to force the allocator to make the allocation more preferable to workers. That's not the same thing as allocating labour. "If we agree on something or if you have learned something, if you made a mistake or misunderstanding of something, it's ok to admit it." I'm waiting for you to learn that unions aren't businesses, that employers allocate labour, and that Marx argued againt the very existence of both money and the state. Any day now I'm sure.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Instead of this basic honesty, you are spamming with disagreement" I'm starting to think you genuinely are not capable of learning. "Only capitalist labor power is allocated via "influence of decisionmakers"" Except, again, they are not allocating it, they are influencing the people that allocate it. You see the difference?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "soviet workplace democracy used state force" That's just an oxymoron. Either they had workplace democracy or they didn't. In this case they didn't. In the case of multiple workplace democracies around the world in worker cooperatives the workers decide their own leadership and therefore influence the decisionmakers through democracy. It is a far more effective method of giving workers the ability to decide their own labour allocation. You're also telling on yourself since you already argued that unions are outdated, meaning you think the only mechanism workers have in a capitalist system to argue for their working conditions should be removed.
1
@ExPwner If it's controlled by state force then there is no democracy is there creamcake. Mate, you still think North Korea is a democracy. You are incapable of learning. Your entire life is the dunning-kruger effect.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "That force is just allocation." So if I go to work for a company, they offer $20 an hour, and I say I won't do it for less than $22, then they up the agreement and pay me the $22, did I allocate the change in pay, or did I convince the company to change the pay? Again, businesses allocate, workers do not. "In a socialist political economy, the force is created by collective monopoly." Market socialism uses a free market, no monopolisation. Capitalism however trends towards monopolisation and only government intervention stops this. "In a capitalist political economy - that's the exclusive application where unions are found" Right, they are collective groups of workers who are using their leverage through a democratically elected representative to get better working conditions and pay. In a market socialist system these workers would simply own the company collectively, effectively making the union and the owner of the company one in the same. The union collectively owns the business. The only difference is the naming convension of the collective.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Early communist society requires a state according to Marx." That's not what he describes as communism, that's what he calls socialism, and it's irrelevant as his entire goal for society is a moneyless, stateless and classless society, meaning your entire point about people not getting paid is irrelevant, your entire point about anything regarding a state existing is moot. Again, you are arguing that a moneyless, stateless and classless society is bad because of money, class and state. It's nonsense.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "That force is just allocation." Wrong. Businesses allocate labour, not unions. Unions can push leverage of issues, but at the end of the day, if the business decided to fire everyone and hire new staff they could do that. They hold the ultimate power. "In a socialist political economy, the force is created by collective monopoly" You just mean the collective, IE literally everyone. Honestly, if the collective is a monopoly in socialism, then business owners are straight up fascists with a monopoly on their workforce. Oh wait, that's exactly what that is. "In a capitalist political economy - that's the exclusive application where unions are found" Except unions are just collectives of workers. In market socialism the workers own the business. They are effectively a union with ownership. Changing the name doesn't really change that both are the collective of workers.
1
@ExPwner Yes, democracy and state force are oxymorons. You can't have a democracy where the entire thing is controlled by the state and votes mean nothing. But you think North Korea is a democracy so this all makes perfect sense for you.
1
@ExPwner Democracy is literally control by the people. That's the whole point of it. We both know you think North Korea is a democracy. Stop running from your own position.
1
@ExPwner Got it, so we agree that North Korea is not socialist as there is no common ownership as there is no democracy. Thanks. Socialism is not equal to democracy, but all socialism is democratic. It seems you misunderstood this point as well. People are worse off, that's just a fact. Income inequality has exploded and people in the same income brackets cannot afford things they would have been able to 5 decades ago.
1
@ExPwner That's a lot of insults for a strawman.
1
@ExPwner "Income inequality is not equal to real wages." Right, but if total wages are keeping up with productivity, but a substantial number of people are falling below the average due to inequalities, then using total wages to explain the wages of say, the bottom 90% of earners, is entirely disingenuous. As for affordability, it doesn't take 2 seconds to look it up. You could just research housing prices and you would know you're wrong instantly. In 1970 the median house price was $26,600, while the median wage was $9,870. In other words a house cost about 2.7 years of salary. These days however the median wage is $59,228, while the median house price is $419,200. That's over 7 years of work. That means it costs more than double just to own a home, and the downpayments on homes like that are of course also substantially higher, leaving many at the bottom far less able to get on the market. As a result, younger generations are losing out on home ownership, and older generations are living longer and skewing home ownership statistics. Only 42% of millenials owned a home at age 30, compared to 51% of Boomers. Current rates of home ownership in under 35s are 38.6%, yet in 1970 that number was 41.2%. And that doesn't even address that you still couldn't respond to the study that openly showed that wages did not keep up. You keep just making excuses that made no sense. "I already proved this wrong in the HobbsO is a liar pt 6 video" You mean the video that referenced a CATO Institute study where they said that more income earners are moving into the top earnings quintile....which is a segment of the population meaning as some people moving into that group others have to move out, making their entire point nonsensical? This is why you read your sources.
1
@ExPwner Socialism does require democracy. It is the only way to get common ownership.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Businesses are not said to allocate" Yes they do. There you go, you learned something. Good job. Or are you seriously arguing that business owners do not have the power to hire, fire, set hours, set pay and even decide where and how people work? "a collective is not everyone. That is capitalism" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! "a plural result of everyone's opinion" What are you smoking mate. In what way is a business owner making unilateral decisions somehow a group decision? Especially when you have openly argued against unions, which according to you is literally the only party standing up for workers and trying to influence pay and working conditions? "A collective is 1 decision with mandate - supposedly - from everyone." 1 decision...after you ask everyone their opinions, they vote on it, then they come to an agreement based on that. So everyone's decision, you just already collated it into 1 decision by asking everyone their opinions rather than arguing about it and striking. "When I say collective monopoly, that 1 decision is not competing with other decisions nor negotiated with counterparties." Except it is, because everyone already voted on it. So it is in fact a group decision, not some singular one. "It is the dictate." No, it is a collective decision. Unlike capitalist businesses which literally dictate. Honestly, it is so utterly unbelievable that you are attempting to argue that a decision made collectively by the workers of a business about the direction of that business is someone some sort of fascist autocratic decision with zero recourse, but a capitalist business owner making decisions is somehow an honest, fair and even negotiation between unions and businesses. I cannot fathom the mental leaps that have caused you to believe something so fundamentally incorrect. Here, let me hwlp you with a comparison. You have 2 options for the government of your country. Option 1: A monarchy. They can control everything and can make unilateral decisions at will because they literally own everything in the entire country by law. If people aren't happy about it they can form a group of people to argue against the monarch, even going so far as to stop working to put pressure on the monarch to change their decisions. Option 2: A democratically elected government where the people elect their own representatives and those representitives carry out the will of the people. Should they fail to do this the people can elect a new representative to carry out their will. Now, which of these is preferable?
1
@ExPwner Yes, when dealing with population ratios if some people move up from one quintile to another, someone else has to move down. That's how a population ratio works. All of the quintiles have the same number of people in.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, the force is not allocation. It's an effort to influence decision makers. Just like any protest against a government, protesters so not make laws, but attempts to pressure politicians. Unions work exactly the same way.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Yes, the collective is everyone. No, capitalist owners are not everyone. The collective only has a 1 decision mandate because they literally got together, asked everyone their opinion, then made a decision based on that. In effect it is a democratic decision based on the opinions of everyone, unlike capitalism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, Marx did not hate anarchism. He disagreed that communism could only be achieved through an anarchistis movement. Communism itself however does terminate in anarchism. Also, when Marx wrote of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" he was referring to leadership. The modern day idea of a dictatorship did not exist, and he was using the Greek term dictatus. In other words, order by the proletariat. Since the proletariat under communism is literally every worker in the entire economy, he was openly arguing for democratic rule of the workers.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Enslaved by who exactly? Again, there is no state, no capitalist business owners, no lords, no land owners of any kind. And who needs money when literally everything is shared? You have free access to food, housing, luxuries, healthcare and everything else that society has. So what exactly could you possibly hope to gain from a contract with money? What are you even buying? There is nothing to buy because you already have access to it.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You seem to have a pretty deep misunderstanding towards Marx's actual ideology. So do me a favour, go look at how a commune works and get back to me when you've done your homework.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 While we're at homework, go look up a democratic republic, then look up a monarchy. Then, decide which of those systems of government more closely resemble a capitalist business or a worker cooperative. I believe in you, this is a really easy one.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 1. Might want to look up the usage of the term and how it was used almost entirely in the 2. False. He meant democracy. In fact Engels spoke of the importance of democracy and how it is the first thing that must be done to ensure democracy. 3. Right, a state run by the people democratically, which would then dissolve over time. 4. The central committee would be elected. 5. To quote Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League: "the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff" See how it says "elected" there? 6. Marx never describes his own theory as state capitalism, and by pointing out that Lenin's government fits the description of state capitalism you are outright admitting that it was not communism. As for a call against democracy, let's have a read shall we: Marx stating that France's new empire does not manage to be democratic: "While carefully preserving all the native beauties of her old system, she super-added all the tricks of the Second Empire, its real despotism, and its mock democratism, its political shams and its financial jobs, its high-flown talk and its low legerdemains." Marx stating that government officials should be able to be recalled by the public at any time to maintain democracy and stop corruption: "From the outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that the working class, once come to power, could not manage with the old state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment."
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Marx hated it as evidenced by his most significant rivals being Bakunin and Proudhon" Again, Marx hated the idea of using anarachism solely from the outset. Bakunin believed that to create a true anarchistic socialist society you would have to break down the entire system and destroy all forms of government from the outset. Marx believed that his world commune could be achieved through an elected government releasing power over time. "Marx designed a state hierarchy with a dictator or team of dictators" False, as has been shown multiple times.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Marx called for the central committee to analyze the material conditions of workers, their fetishism, their stage in the revolution, their sectarian trends, etc, then to dictate policy deemed appropriate." This committee was elected.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "The collective is one and not everyone." Not sure you understand what words mean at this point.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Can you acknowledge the difference between pluralism and collectivism?" Sure "Do you acknowledge that collectivism is associated with socialist, communist and anarchist theory? " Sure "Do you acknowledge that pluralism is the basis of markets and of capitalism itself?" Sure "Do you recognize that all human rights are specifically to effect pluralism?" False. Positive human rights such as rights to food, water, shelter, healthcare et cetera cannot be fullfilled through capitalistic market demand. "Pluralism is the only moral role of state." Says the capitalist as he watches people starve to death in a ditch because they can't afford basic necessities. "Collectivism is unethical and immoral. It is responsible for slavery" Remember when I said capitalists owned slaves? They also bought the slaves from Africa and sold them to the Americas. They literally created a capitalistic market demand for slaves. "3rd Reich, the bolshevik putsch of Russia, DPRK, China" None of which were/are democratic. It's almost as if democracy is really important or something.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 1. No, it wasn't. Usage of the modern term was popularised in the early 1900s. 2. Wrong, he meant democratic. Engels even stated that establishing democracy is the most important thing a post-revolution socialist state can do. 3. Right, a democratically elected state that would dissolve over time. 4. The central committee proposed was not just elected, but also subject to recall, as shown below. 5. "the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff" 6. At least you admit that Leninism was state capitalism and not any form of socialism. As for Marx's writings The Civil War in France: This is a call to make elected officials, without exception, subject to voter recalls at any time. "this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old repressive machinery previously used against it itself, and, on the other, safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment." Really wondering why you keep focusing on Marx so much. Are you aware that other forms of socialism exist?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "A collective is a single entity like government or corporation or group or team or herd or flock or pack." Sure, and in socalism that collective is elected. As the collective is elected they already ask everyone their opinions then drive policy based on that. So while it is a singular decision, that decison is based on the opinions of everyone in the collective. But please, tell me more about how you think democracy is bad and we should just have an oligarchy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You get he was living in London in 1850 right? He wasn't a leader of any German committee. This committee also wasn't in any sort of government. He was a member of a sub-committee in London, but I'm not sure there is evidence for the claim he was not elected.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "I don't see any response to the dialectic between collectivism and pluralism with collectivism being unethical because of human rights abrogation and pluralism literally being created by fundamental human rights." Because it's built on a false presupposition. As I explained, capitalism is not capable of fulfilling multiple human rights. "people and acquiesced to their protection following the soviet referendum of 1991." Again, do you honestly think modern day Russia is a bastion of human rights and not an authoritarian hole like it has alwats been?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "There is a dictatorial state in Marx's proposal of Critique of the Gotha Program." False, as explained. "The state, the collective, enslaved all Russian peasants under war communism." Under what they called communism but was actually just state capitalism, as you already agreed. "They worked to make surplus product no differently than my ancestors and their produce was requisitioned by Lenin's government with zero compensation." I mean, if you are trying to argue that Lenin was bad, then congrats we agree for once. Lenin also overthrew a democratic election where an actual socialist party won. He was simply not socialist in his implementation of his ideology. And was explained before, all government figures should be both elected and able to be recalled. He was neither.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Haven't you read his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League" I have, but he was not their leader. And that groups was also not in government, making your statement extra pointless. He was literally in a different country. Him being in London was important because it seems almost impossible that someone living hundreds of miles away could be seen as a leader of Germany from such a distance. The idea that he was trying to take over a part of Germany while living in London at the time from this group is utterly mad. Oh, and I found this: "for the moment the result of the League congress which took place in the summer of 1847 was no more than a democratic reorganization " So they did in fact hold elections. Imagine that.
1
 @soulcapitalist6204 "Wtf did you say about quitiles trapping a fixed quantity of individuals?" I would love to know how you think quintiles work.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Marx appointed himself to the central committee of the proletariat." False. I already showed they held elections.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "before we return to capitalism and socialism, it's important you acknowledge orthodox political science about collectivism and pluralism." So you admit that your points on collectivism and pluralism has nothing to do with our discussion on capitalism and socialism. Thanks.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Modern day Russia has constitutional protection for all basic human rights" Ah yes, modern day Russia, the bastion of human rights....
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Please repeat your explanation of how a capitalist political economy cannot guarantee human rights" Capitalism cannot fulfill positive human rights. "Explain how it isthat EUCHR and capitalism is in effect at thesame time in Eurozone/EU, with no exception." Because not a single one of the EU countries use capitalism to fulfill positive human rights, they use government. "Following this, explain why no socialist theory ever addresses human rights." They do actually. The terminology tends to be different since a lot of people talk about Marx, who died long before they were codified. But even Marx talks of egalitarianism, which is the the doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. "What does that have to do with the end of socialism there if human rights were not abrogated due to marxist ideology?" Again, you are starting with a supposition and trying to slip it into the question. 1. Russia was not socialist and never has been. 2. Russia does not fulfill human rights and fails to meet basic standards on many many levels. 3. Marxism is egalitarian, Marx said so multiple times. Here, allow me to help you. If you have no money but need things like healthcare, food, water or shelter, what would a capitalist do to address your needs?
1
@ExPwner So if someone is dying of thirst or starving you don't think they deserve to live by having their needs provided for?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Having a government wthin a capitalist and using capitalism to actual effect change are 2 different things. Any action taken by government to collect taxes or fund social programs in not a capitalist endeavour. To attribute programs like food stamps to capitalists, the very same people who at the time, and even to this day, openly decry social programs as a form of socialism, is downright laughable.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You should really read the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights before just making up your own. They list the 30 inalienable rights of all people. As for your rather short list, it ignores article 25, which states that: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control." The reason for this is that without these things people would die. That's what makes them human rights. Oh, and don't just make up a right. "Free contract" is not listed by the UN.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Aside from the fact that the German Confederation was a loose alliance of member states, it was also not referred to as a dictatorship at the time, even if it was one by modern standards.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Lenin was not bad." -Soul Capitalist Yes, Lenin was bad. He lost an election then used military might to overthrow the socialist winners of said election. He was an unelected autocrat.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Only communist russia's socialist political economy was banned by human rights guarantees." They still throw people out of windows, imprison political prisoners, poison people on foreign soil, and run the entire national economy as a capitalist oligarchy. But it's cool though, because the fake socialism of the soviets is gone. "Before the other Europeans ever conceived a positive right to healthcare, post-soviet Russia put that in place." What? Are you serious right now? The NHS was introduced in 1948 you absolute spanner. That's 43 years before 1991 since you clearly need help counting. This is an especially funny point, as of all the things wrong with Soviet Russia, universal medicine was in fact guaranteed. NHI was made truely universal in 1974, but was first established in 1928. SSN 1978 SNS 1984 I could go on, but I think it's pretty clear that all of these are long before 1991.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Did you drop your utterly delusional point about quintiles already? Weird how you just didn't reply on that one.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Are you such an ignoramus that you don't even know what socialism means?" Socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. It is the third type of ownership, separate from state or private ownership. "You say lenin and russia were not socialist and this is because of revolution" False. I say Lenin and Russia were not socialist because the means of production were not owned in common. Lenin overthrowing a democratically elected government to establish himself as an authoritarian leader is just evidence to support this fact. "Mensheviks were social democrats" No. Mensheviks were democratic socialists. That label more accurately describes their position using modern standards. Bit odd to bring up the Mensheviks though, since they were not the winners of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election, who were later overthrown by Lenin. The winners were the Socialist Revolutionary Party, who gained the largest margin of the total votes and subsequent legislature seats. Lenin came in second with 23.3% of the vote, after openly lying about his position for the better part of a year to try to win votes. Maybe you need to just look up Russian history and get back to me.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Marx's philosophy is to make people equal and not treat them equally." "We are not equal in marxian class" What? "We can be in whatever bogus marxian class we please." Rememebr when I said Marxism was classless? This is especially funny as even in capitalism you can't be whatever class you please lol. And no, Marxian philosophy is that we are all equal and should therefore all be given the same rights and opportunities. People incapable of work are taken care of, and those able to work do so to support the community. Through this everyone is taken care of. Needs are met, luxuries are distributed, and everyone wins. What's funny is modern governments use social programs to create these exact conditions, guaranteeing human rights to basic necessities such as food, housing and more. And at the introduction of these programs they were of course decried as socialism. But please tell me more about Marx's egalitarian democratic socialism that is actually authoritarian just because you say so.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Are you so unethical and immoral in your collectivist philosophy that you cannot address the differences in ethics and morality of role of state between plural society and a collectivist society?" Sure, allow me. When you ask everyone's opinion collectivism is democratic. Therefore decisions made are in fact the decisions of the general population, not some singular faceless entity. Under your plural society the winner is always the one with more power, which is innevetably the one with more money. In fact the only reason unions even exist in the modern age is government protections. And even then just recently Amazon straight up refused to allow their worker to unionise, despite the workers voting in favour of it. Their reason for doing so was the gutting of the US government currently taking place. So tell me, where is the plural society for Amazon workers?
1
@ExPwner Got it, so you think starvation is justified under capitalism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Before the other Europeans ever conceived a positive right to healthcare, post-soviet Russia put that in place." The NHS was established in 1948 mate. Try again.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Only communist russia's socialist political economy was banned by human rights guarantees." They still throw people out of windows, imprison political prisoners, poison people on foreign soil, and run the entire national economy as a capitalist oligarchy. But it's cool though, because the fake socialism of the soviets is gone.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. It is the third type of ownership, separate from state or private ownership. False. I say Lenin and Russia were not socialist because the means of production were not owned in common. Lenin overthrowing a democratically elected government to establish himself as an authoritarian leader is just evidence to support this fact. Bit odd to bring up the Mensheviks , since they were not the winners of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election, who were later overthrown by Lenin. Maybe you need to just look up Russian history and get back to me.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, Marxian philosophy is that we are all equal and should therefore all be given the same rights and opportunities. People incapable of work are taken care of, and those able to work do so to support the community. Through this everyone is taken care of. Needs are met, luxuries are distributed, and everyone wins. What's funny is modern governments use social programs to create these exact conditions, guaranteeing human rights to basic necessities such as food, housing and more. They also cover people unable to work with disability payments. And at the introduction of these programs they were of course decried as socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 When you ask everyone's opinion collectivism is democratic. Therefore decisions made are in fact the decisions of the general population, not some singular faceless entity. Under your plural society the winner is always the one with more power, which is innevetably the one with more money. In fact the only reason unions even exist in the modern age is government protections. And even then just recently Amazon straight up refused to allow their worker to unionise, despite the workers voting in favour of it. Their reason for doing so was the gutting of the US government currently taking place. So tell me, where is the plural society for Amazon workers?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Marxian philosophy is that we are all equal and should therefore all be given the same rights and opportunities. People incapable of work are taken care of, and those able to work do so to support the community. What's funny is modern governments use social programs to create these exact conditions, guaranteeing human rights to basic necessities such as food, housing and more.
1
@ExPwner So if someone literally cannot afford to eat, should they be allowed to eat?
1
@ExPwner "20% of the population in 1970 was around 40m and 20% of the population today is more like 68m. There are more people" But there are more people in the other quintiles as well, so where did all those people come from? But I'm glad you admit it was still 20% of the population. Fun fact, for it to retain a value of 20% of the population, if one person gets more income and moves up into a different quintile, someone at the bottom of that quintile moves down and the boundary of that quintile changes. The same is true for people losing income. If your income reduces enough then you drop down a quintile, and the boundary for that quintile lowers to allow another person in. that's how equal population quintiles work.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "The welfare state is a capitalist endeavor" Lol. "The State" is literally never a capitalist endeavour. "When printing out capitalist money" You know that money is not strictly a capitalist concept right? Money existed long before capitalism. "Communism can never, ever produxe a society which lives up to from each by their ability, to each by their need, however United States has done this for 40 years by implementing negative income tax philosophy" Not only does the US not have a negative income tax philosophy, the homeless situation alone should clue you in to the vast inability of the US to cover basic human rights.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "By focusing on Lenin, you present the fallacy "argumentum ad hominem"." We were discussing Leninism champ. That's also the wrong fallacy, but if you want I can find all your comments with insults to display a real argumentum ad hominem. "Marxism is bad because it abrogates human rights with collective power theory, not unlike any fascist approach." Again, not only is Marxism a democratic philosophy, but Marx advocated for the ability to recall politicians should they fail to meet the standards of the people. Maybe try something other than a strawman. Might be a good start.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Marx referred to both Germany and France as dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in his The Class Struggles in France" You should probably actually read his points on France, as you seem somewhat confused. Most notably he mentions that the peasants elected their own government, and at another time referred to this government as a dictatorship of the poletariat. It becomes very clear upon review, especially given your own choice of source, that Marx used the term "dictatorship" to simply mean "leadership" and not the modern day equivolent that was not developed until long after Marx's death. "A dictatorship was a plenypotential governorship under Holy Roman Empire" You're confusing the Roman Empire with the Holy Roman Empire. While the Roman Empire had temporary leaders appointed by the Senate in times of strife who were called dictators, they had terms limits or goals, and could be pushed to step down. They were still elected leaders, even if their power was greater than a standard government, mostly due to the temporary nature of the appointment. The Holy Roman Empire had no such position. In fact the Holy Roman Empire did not have a singular leader, or even a single leading government, at any point in the entire empire's existence. The term dictatorship was not used in the modern context until the 1930s. Maybe if you spent less time insulting and more time reading you would know all of this.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 That's just false. China had fiat money in the 900s. The US had it before the Civil War, which you already argued wasn't real capitalism because slavery existed. And not only that, fiat money is government issued. It is literally the exact opposite of a capitalist monetary system.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Honestly the absolute comedy of nations switching to fiat currency after the absolute disasters posed during the capitalist explosion that was the Great Depression, just for you to claim that fiat currency is some capitalist invention is peak comedy. Governments wanted to reduce reliance on commodities to allow more control and rely less on markets, the exact opposite of capitalism. It's like thanking the Nazis for the UN. Peak madness.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Finland ended homelessness by giving homeless people houses. Try again.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Extreme poverty was eliminated BY GOVERNMENT.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Cool, so we agree human rights were not a new concept and Marx openly supported them.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, I'm saying that governments cannot be capitalist since capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production, and taxation is by definition not private.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Plenty would agree that the US has too much government and that government intervention is in fact socialism. The current administration for starters.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 When they started it was 8,000. But I'm impressed that your entire argument is "they only cut it by 75% to such a small number that no other country has ever managed." 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 What's US homelessness again. Oh right, current numbers are 771,480, not excluding the vast number of people not counted in these audits. That's a little over 0.2% of the population, and that's including the fact that the US has some inferior housing programs. Now look at Finland, at just 0.018%, less than a tenth the homeless per capita. Clearly actually giving people their human rights is working better.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Nobody is arguing based on virtues other than you. You are argue that Marx's virtues were poor and therefore so were the soviets. Of course, this isn't actually what argumentum ad hominem means, but it's nice to watch you attack your own argument.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 How does a welfare system "protect private property"? You're just saying I'm right again.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Glad you walked that point about fiat currency. Shame you missed the part where government stopped using a gold standard because of capitalism. You'll learn some day, but not today. Welfare also existed long LONG before high speed market fiat, but I digress.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Finland's homeless per capital is less than 10% the lowest US estimates. Clearly government intervention worked. And this is before I point out that the US also has government housing programs, Section 8, which house another 2 million people. 2 million extra people not on the street thanks to socialist policies.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it, so it has absolutely nothing to do with a medium of exchange and protecting property but your ideology can't handle that fact and you've decided to just make up something utterly nonsensical again. Thanks.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, my argument was that Lenin went directly against Marx, and that you have absolutely failed in your reading of Marx, which I have shown time and time again in this thread.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Lenin was not elected, despite Marx and Engles continuously calling for universal suffrage. Russia was not a dictatorship of the proletariat, even in a marxian sense where dictatorship simply means leadership as had been explained to you multiple times, as said proletariat had no say in the running of the state. It was a dictatorship of the oligarchy, and a dictatorship by modern definitions, not Marxian. They were a state capitalist system, where the state controlled markets and businesses were distributed to oligarchs, as you have openly admitted. And Lenin's revolution for leadership was directly against an elected socialist government. Oh, and Lenin lied. Shocker. Just like he lied before the election in 1917 to garner more support.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Clearly you went to such a poor private school that they failed to teach you even the most basic logic or facts. Your entire education seems tainted by extreme capitalists leading you to become an indoctrinated lemming, content to kiss the boot on your own neck.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Honestly, if this is the state of private school near you then the crime rates must be diabolical.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Or did you just attend some crackpot Liberty U style school? Indoctrinating young minds one fascist class at a time?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I wonder if your private school ever taught you the difference between the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire. I guess you just forgot.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 And go ask your private school teachers about population quintiles 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@ExPwner I guess you missed the direct quotes I posted. I know you find reading hard.
1
@ExPwner Please, tell me more about how 1 population quintile can be larger than the other 4.
1
@ExPwner Yes, Finland has almost entirely ended homelessness due to state intervention, and it continues to drop. The remaining homeless are tracked and still receiving some form of non-permanent help. Their definition of homeless even includes many people that the US simply doesn't count, such as people living with friends temporarily or families in temporary living situations such a hotels. As Soul noted, those living in long-term homeless situations number just 1,000, which is about 10 times better than the US. Their end goal is to entirely eliminate long-term homelessness, which they are clearly closest in the world to doing, and have significantly reduced homelessness since the introduction of Housing First. But hey, can you think of a way to end homelessness?
1
@ExPwner Oh, I forgot to ask, why do you love people starving to death?
1
@ExPwner Weird how instances of extreme poverty dropped when we came out with basic standards of welfare. Also weird that economic strife seems to be unable to significantly increase extreme poverty, unlike the pre-welfare crash in the 30s which caused extreme poverty in the US to explode. Also weird that massive government investment and spending ended the great depression around the world. You know, the depression caused by capitalism, which had people taking out mortgages to buy stocks with a 10% deposit? Anyway, clearly we should destroy all welfare and government investment and just let businesses handle it. What could go wrong... aside from monopolies, oligarchy and economic crashes?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I've already given plenty of evidence that he did in fact go against Marx. My direct quotes from Marx on egalitarianism, democratic elections, voter power and much much more show very clearly that Lenin's interpretation has nothing to do with Marx's vision. Your choice to ignore all of that is entirely personal. But since you can't even get ad hominem right I'm not shocked. You have no argument because you have openly refused to address a single statement on Marx's writings, despite my use of quotes from works that you claim show you are correct. You can't even tell the difference between the practices of the Roman Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, which you were trying to use as evidence of Marx supporting a non-democratic leadership. This is despite Marx openly calling for leadership to be elected and subject to voter demands through a recall process. The absolute nail in the coffin is your own reference to Soviet Russia as State Capitalism Honestly, at this point I just you are incapable of learning.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 At this point your argument just seems to be that Lenin's propaganda makes a claim, and you can't help but agree with a dictatoral oligarch when they spout off propaganda. In fact it's likely a serious character flaw of most capitalist zealots.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Maybe the issue is that you can't help but take Lenin at his word. His propaganda seems to be taken at face value rather than critiqued. Since he was both an oligarch and an autocrat I suppose it makes sense for you to believe everything he says as of it's a gospel truth.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You can go back in the thread and look. Honestly, at this point your just seem to be a Leninist 🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You mean the exact document where it says that elected officials should be subject to recall by voters should they fail to meet expectations?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 While we're making things up my Leninist friend, did you ever find those Holy Roman Empire dictators?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "No political franchise or self-government" Imagine reading Marx's letters on the Civil War in France where he directly addresses the lack of political franchise as voters are being ignored and overridden, and then somehow coming to the opposite conclusion.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I like the part in Critique of the Gotha Programme where Marx writes about people's natural advantages and disadvantages making society inherently unfair, and how rights should account for such weaknesses to provide support for those in society that need that extra help, and your response is that Marx thinks his ideology should be unequal. This is clearly a dramatic misunderstanding of what Marx wrote.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Really proving my point here. If most elected officials including Lenin could not be elected or recalled when they directly contradict Marx.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Stop being dishonest. I already showed you were wrong multiple times. Even your own comment proves you wrong.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Only a Leninist would say Lenin developed a democratic system 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Nothing about that Marx quote says he did not favour democracy. He was stating that dissolving Germany into individual member states would be a folly. Honestly, for someone who has read all of Marx you really missed the part where he calls for universal suffrage? But I would expect nothing more from a Leninist like yourself.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Honestly, the argument that capitalism is better at addressing public need as we face medical bankruptcies, food assistance program cuts and the largest wealth inequality since feudalism is peak comedy. Especially as every time your capitalist society has tried to address from each/to each it does so using government while capitalist business owners openly decry it as socialism. Although I suppose capitalist taking credit for the efforts of the majority is nothing new and is in fact the entire basis of capitalism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I just can't get around the clear issue in you claiming that government and general public efforts to provide basic welfare are somehow capitalism, despite being directly opposed by capitalists for generations, and are currently being cut by the richest man in the world, the shining symbol of useless capitalists. CEO of 3 companies, and a government official, while actually doing very little in any of these roles. It's almost as if capitalism is built on taking credit for other's work.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it, so you believe that since it was called democratic centralism it was a democracy. You Leninists really are silly aren't they.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Did you want a hint at how current German government works? Fun fact, they don't use a model of state and federal, but a singular central government. People elect this government directly, unlike a federated republic where leaders are appointed by the heads of each member state. But hey, keep telling me that Germany's current government, along with the UK, France, Spain, Italy and many many more are actually the big bad Marxism 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Maybe check the current government of Germany, which used a central government that has far more power than any under the Holy Roman Empire Marx was criticising.
1
@ExPwner Oh look, the pro-starvation guy is back.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So wait, according to you HRE was a dictatorship (it was a confederation), but also according to you we should return to a federated republic (liberal democracy). The big issue being is that the only difference between a confederation and a federated republic is a central government (which you just said was a dictatorship). Aside from the comedy of you arguing that a decentralised system of separate states is a dictatorship and having a central government that controls those members states ia somehow liberal democracy, you also jumped over the part where Marx was proposing an elected central government (actual liberal democracy) rather than a federated republic where member states form a government without any sort of central elected by the people (federalism, distancing voters from their leaders and creating an uneven system where smaller members state's citizens have more say than larger members states). I'm starting to think you just don't know what a federated republic is, what a confederation is, or how the current government of Germany is elected. I also encourage you to look to a nation like France, which also has a directly elected central government and does not use a federal model at all, and then tell me how having a singular elected central government is somehow bad.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it, so we agree that a system without a cental government was the problem, and according to you a system without a central government is the modern day understanding of a dictatorship.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Right, it was controlled by business owners. France is not federated. It's a dual executive system, with a prime minister elected by members of Parliament who are representatives of constituents, not member states, and a President directly elected by the people.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Senators were not even elected in Marx's time, you know that right? Voting was heavily restricted. Slavery still existed. They literally had a war.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So marx expressly stating that this form of government was bad, and you believe he was advocating for it.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I'm sure the pro-slavery capitalist America was totally a liberal democracy and didn't ban 75% of people form voting.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Marx also expressly pointed out that France ignored the electorate selected theor own leadership while ignoring democratic votes, but somehow you think he was against democracy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Yes, you can have both political and economic democracy. In fact economic democracy requires political democracy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Thanks for admitting that what you call "liberal democracy" often falls short of actual democracy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Marx stated that the right of the people to revolt (free assembly) must be maintained. Something capitalism has failed to maintain time and time again. But keep calling democracy stupid because it upsets you when people you deem lesser than have opinions.
1
@ExPwner Tell me more about your pro-starvation philosophy.
1
@ExPwner Wait, the capitalist wants to talk about starvation and slavery? Tell me more about US slavery under capitalism and your continued support for ending welfare and letting the poor starve. Oh, and you aren't part of the debate. You have no arguments, and quite frankly are not worth it.
1
@ExPwner "Projection isn’t going to work. You lost the argument" This comment couldn't be more funny. This is why incels like you can't think of a single argument.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You can't even define socialism or capitalism. Honestly, watching you contradict yourself time and time again is sad enough, but being this incapable or even the most basic starter to an argument is pathetic. Did you even figure out the difference between the two Roman empires? Or if Lenin could be recalled by the voters? Or if the Soviet Union was socialist or state capitalist as you openly claimed? Or if Marx was trying to take over the German government while living in London? Or if Marx was even the leader of the Communist League? Or if egalitarianism includes human rights? Or if rights to basic things necessary to life exist? Or if government welfare is actually just capitalism? I could go on, but this is more than enough to show how utterly dishonest and downright nuts you've been in this conversation. But we can all see why you spend so much time on here with that last comment. Wife left you didn't she. Why is it always a distinct hatred of women with you pro-oligarchy bootlickers?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it. So you can't actually define the things we're talking about, are so obsessed with big business that you tediously study who's shoes you need to kiss, and lack so much empathy that while talking about your own tragic family situation you feel the need to throw an insult out at the same time. Bitter I suppose. But at least I can now tell my wife we aren't really married. Bit of an odd insult given the only married one between you, me and James is the socialist. Or are you just proving single handedly that the soviets were never socialists. The right really can't think past their immediate situation though can they. You really need to look up that heat map study.
1
@ExPwner The incel who lives with his mother is calling someone else a child 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Wonderful. Then go ahead and post the definitions.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I love how you think being envious of others wealth isn't the absolute epitome of capitalism. Now you're just projecting, and it's pathetic. This all comes down to empathy, and right-wingers are generally deeply lacking.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Capitalism has many flaws, it can be awful in more ways than one. I fail to see the envy of "we want people to stop getting rich off the backs of our hard work". In fact I feel like a member of the AA community would have some idea, but here we are. Of course, this is right back to that empathy chart again. But hey, you learnt what envy means and how it differs from jealousy. Baby steps.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "I think society should take care of everyone, providing people with the basic necessities like food, housing and shelter. I also believe that greedy business owners who get rich off the backs of their workers shouldn't exist, and instead business should be run by the workers of those businesses, guaranteeing people a right to the revenues generated by their own hard work." Honestly, sounds a lot better than your POV: "I want rich people to exist because one day I might be rich, and without capitalism how will I exploit people the way I've been exploited." Honestly, capitalism sounds like those parents that think it's okay to hit kids because they got abused as children.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Neither of those things are mercantile, but at least you admit that socialism and fascism are opposites. Baby steps.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 1. Thanks for admitting those regimes were not in fact socialism, they were states controlled by fascists. 2. As has been shown to you, many forms of socialism are not through government, and all forms of socialism are people power, whether through a democratically elected state head or through some other democratic group. 3. Imagine thinking that the precursor to actual democracy is somehow better than democracy. 4. "Profit over people." There, I summed up your point. 5. Unions gained power because of economic crashes. They fought tooth and nail against gangs and government paid off by capitalists to stop them. The economic prosperity brought about by high wages due to high wages and government investment led to less union memership, and as union membership dropped as did union protections. Your theory is the biggest load of correlation equals causation nonsense I've seen in a while.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "The envy you fail to see is that you aim to broadly abrogate human rights" Nevermind, I take it back, you have no idea what envy means. You just parrotted a word earlier. Broken clocks and all that. "you are jealous of free assembly in the pursuit of financial success" Technically correct, although you don't seem to know what you just said. I am indeed concerned capitalist oligarchs will take away my right to free assembly in their persuit of financial success. "You are envious that the men your wife admires assemble for the dough while you seeth with "empathy"." No need to hit out just because your wife decided a rather dramatic alternative to spending another day with you. In other news, how does one "seethe with empathy"? Genuinely curious. If you want I can start a list of words you've butchered: Human rights Envy/envious Jealous/jealousy Empathy Seethe When you get a chance look up this paper in Nature: Ideological differences in the expanse of the moral circle It will help you to understand your issues with empathy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I'm sure some unions were, but most were not. Union membership also only hit 6.2% in the private sector in 2020. It has been dropping for decades, not just a few years as you claimed. Really throws your Civil Rights claim out the window. Fascist syndicalism isn't a thing. You either believe that unions should have the power to control the state through worker action, or you believe the state should control businesses and workers. Again, George Fitzhugh was a sociologist who believed that socialism was the path to abolition, which he was against. Victor Berger's party wrote this: “The Socialist Party is the party of the working class, regardless of color — the whole working class of the whole world.” As for sanctions, he was sanctioned under the 1917 espionage act during WWI because he was an Austrian born immigrant. And yes, congratulations, Marx was a socialist. He was also Jewish, but I suppose you missed that part. Tell me more about how the US South wasn't "real capitalism" as was instead a form of feudalism, but without any of the rules that surround feudalism, such as a monarchy or the distribution of land and titles by said monarchy.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So we're just making number up now? Private union membership didn't hit 10% until the mid-90s. That's 30 years after the Civil Rights bill.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 The CIO was one of the strongest anti-segregation forces of the US in the 1930s. By accepting all workers when organizing an entire industry, including women, African Americans, and immigrants from eastern and southern Europe and their children, the CIO welcomed a variety and unskilled and semiskilled workers the AFL had often neglected. Even poorly paid, young, female sales clerks at Woolworth’s used the sit-down tactic to demand better conditions. Benjamin Stolberg, a noted labor journalist, wrote, “the C.I.O. has changed significantly the relation of social forces in American industry. . . . It is gradually killing off the A.F. of L.” Lewis’s extraordinary leadership, he added, had made the CIO “the most vital and progressive force in American life today.”
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Your Title VII point is also nonsense. While it does apply to unions, almost all Title VII cases, including the largest employment discrimination payout ever, were against capitalists. In fact many Title VII cases were unions suing businesses, not the other way around.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Can you define syndicalism?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Yeah, again, Fitzhugh openly called socialism a path to abolition. The fact he was a feudalist doesn't mean he was a socialist.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 The rest of one of your quotes: "What madness and folly, at this late day, to form society for human beings regardless of human nature. Yet the Socialists are guilty of this folly, and gravely propose to change man's nature to fit him for their new institutions. How much more wise, prudent and philosophical it would be to recur to some old tried forms of society, especially as we shall presently show that such forms of society have existed, and do now exist, as will remove all the evils they complain of, and attain all the ends they propose." He is literally saying that socialists are anti-slavery, anti-segregation and pro-human rights.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it, found where you are confused. Fascism destroys unions and creates a government top-down system for labour management, with no ability for any sort of labour relations with government since they literally are government. Calling fascist government workers "union members" is just propaganda, since they do not meet the definition of a union. Members cannot vote, cannot decide their own rule, cannot pick their leadership and are not optional. They are a glorified list of employees. Syndicalism is also about unions influencing government, not government influencing businesses through "unions". You have the dynamic entirely backwards.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Ah, got it. I was wondering how you were confused. Fascism doesn't have unions.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 If you can't tell the difference between unions banding together to influence government decisions through the threat of worker action as a sort of bottom up approach to democratic control, and a government controlling the markets by controlling labour using a top-down controlling method, then there is no hope for you.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Tell you what, can you define union. That seems to be the real crux of the issue here.
1
@ExPwner If you had an argument I would respond in kind. Instead you are a glorified cheerleader. But thanks for bringing up TIK, the man who thinks North Korea is a democracy. That's clearly where you get such a ridiculous notion.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, he said he wasn't. I showed you the quote outright. He called socialists abolitionists. He didn't specify some socialists. He outright said that socialism, literally all of it, is a path to abolition. Because Fitzhugh didn't want the means of production to be controlled by the collective, or even for the collective for that matter, which is arguably the same thing. He wanted a small group of people to have control over a rather large group of people by denying them rights and freedoms. In no interpretation of this are all the people of society controlling the means of production. In fact many people are being turned into means of production. His proposed economic policy was just feudalism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Yet in Nazi Germany the government did indeed control the labour market. Workers were directed toward specific workplaces and businesses did not have the ability to pick their workforce or change pay rates. And again, none of this is a union. As you stated, unions do not allocate workers, but in Germany the government did. It wasn't a negotiation either. Unions, as an evolution of medieval guilds, are created by the guild members and controlled by said members. Leaders are all members, chosen by other members. Any group claiming to be a union without this mechanism is simply not a union.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 The German government did indeed control the the labour market. Unions, like guilds, are created by members, rules are decided by members and leadership is elected by members. Germany had none of this, unlike actual unions.
1
@ExPwner Oh I'm sorry, I forgot your argument about a quintile being a larger proportion of the population 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@ExPwner Again, you jump to your friend and make no argument like a good little cheerleader.
1
@ExPwner Wait, are you still defending your quintile BS? Hahahahaha!!! Neither of the things you said change the point being made, which is that 20% of the population has seen much larger income increases than the rest of the population. The fact that some people left the top quintile entirely to retire (which would actually lower the top 20% average income) is irrelevant. The fact that some people moved up from a lower quintile to an upper (which causes someone else to move down and would raise the income) is also irrelevant. Because the average earners in that 20% is still substantially better off than their counterparts 30 years ago.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Southern plantations were privately owned. They could be bought and sold. There was no collective, and even of what you claim is true, the collective did not include the literal millions of slaves. Socialism does not separate people, that's capitalism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, he was criticising all of socialism. That's why he said "socialism", and not "this specific group of socialists". He openly believed that socialism was a path to abolition, we he was responding against. It's that simple. You have yet to post a quote where he called himself a socialist.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Here is Fitzhugh openly procaliming that all versions of socialism derive from Plato's republic, which he openly stated would not work in the modern day. "we shall find that all the socialists derive, in some degree, their theories from Plato's republic. He borrowed his thoughts from actual models; but the little communities of Crete and Sparta cannot be acted over again in our day. Their highly artificial social forms were kept alive by outside pressure and inside necessity."
1
@soulcapitalist6204 He was anti-free competition, not pro-collectivism. He specifically placed the poor at the bottom of society without rights or freedoms. In no way is this group control of the means of production. You posted an incomplete quote, I posted the rest. Even in your quote he claimed that socialists were separate from his own views. Wait, you genuinely think feudalism is socialism? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Socialism is not race or class collectivism. It is the egalitarian theory that everyone should be within the same economic class. Rather than segregating people, they equalise people. In this any segregated system is by definition not an egalitarian democratic socialist system.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, the southern means of production were not collectivised.
1
@ExPwner Glad you don't understand what a population is 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, I have not generalised Marx as all of socialism. All socialist thories have an underlying theme of common ownership. You cannot be in a separate class while also collectively owning things. The same is true for race. You can't collectively own things with people of all races while also being race segregated. It makes absolutely no sense. The USSR was not socialist. As you have openly admitted, it was state capitalism. As I have shown several times, not only did Fitzhugh describe himself as separate from socialists in every single one of the quotes either of us has posted, he also referred to all of socialism as both a path to abolition, and said that all socialists get their philosophy from outdated greek republics. He outright said socialism is outdated and directly against his own worldview. Lenin was a socialist at least at some points in history, but his attempt at a government was not. Again, socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. I asked you for a definition because I like to see where your own view differ from reality so we can find the holes and patch them using actual socialist theory rather than whatever nonsense you like to spew out. Your definition of socialism in this particular comment is flawed in 2 ways: 1. It claims that monarchies are socialist, which goes against centuries of political arguments on the topic. Monarchists are classically right-wing. 2. Market socialism does not allocate control nor monopolise control of the means of production. So by ignoring actual socialism you have invented this strawman claim that socialism is in someway linked to government, without any actual understanding of even the very roots of the various theories around socialism, including communes.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Yes yes, strawman strawman. We all know how you operate.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, you've provided me with a quote that shown Fitzhugh advocating slaves to be treated as property underneath singular land owners. And regardless, feudalism is collective but not socialist, so this point is moot. Your root issue however seems to be a clear lack of understanding of what common ownership is.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, socialism does not have an outgroup. If it did ownership would not be common. You are just proving that nothing you describe as socialism is actually socialism.
1
@ExPwner Again, a growing population does not explain the dramatic increase in the top income bracket's average income. Mostly because as I just said, it's an average. But please tell me more about how you love strawmanning socialism because you don't understand it. And no, I just called you an incel, because you are one.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 That's nice dear. Unions are socialism because they are democratic and give workers common ownership over said union. They are run by members, for members. That's socialism. Your big issue is you clearly have no idea what socialism is. It's just strawman after strawman with you.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Given your recent comment on feudalism not being a collective, I think you need to rethink your entire argument again. Sounds like I don't know what your made up version of a collective is, which just seems to be whatever you don't like the sound of at this point. Earlier you told me that unions were businesses (they aren't), that unions allocate labour (they don't) and that pluralism is great because unions can argue against companies to come to a mutual agreement, while also arguing that unions shouldn't exist. No, there are many theories of socialism, but all theories of socialism require common ownership. You are confusing your imaginary idea of collectivism (whatever you decide you don't like) with socialist common ownership. Common ownership doesn't require collectivism, it requires democracy. Democracy requires human rights. Market socialism requires human rights. Capitalism does not. You also claimed that human rights were written to stop communism, yet you also claim that one of the nations that helped form the UN Declaration of Human Rights was communist. While Mussolini morphed the idea of syndicalism into his own political and economic theory, the end result has abslutely nothing in common with syndicalism. The two are entirely different in a number of ways, most notably the mechanism of governance. In syndicalism government can be influenced by trade unions to affect policy. In Mussolini's Italy unions didn't even exist. The fact that someone can start with an idea and end somewhere entirely different doesn't make those things the same, or even remotely similar. You have to show similarities in the actual theories, not just handwave and say they must be the same because some guy who used to believe in syndicalism created an entirely different system. Next time I fry a egg and ask you how long until it hatches. Are all extreme capialists such utter knobends?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Feudalism is not collective." ....Honestly, at this point "collective" just seems like an excuse for circular reasoning. Seriously, what do you genuinely think it means. "Feudal socialism was a proposal for socialist political economy." No it wasn't. Feudal socialism was a term Marx used to describe the aristocrats of France and England attempting to appeal to the masses while trying to stop the bougeois from taking over control of society. No members of the aristocracy wrote a book on feudal socialist theory. It's more of an observation by Marx to explain the phenomenon of nobility doing everything they could to maintain the slightest modicum of power, including appealing to populism and claiming the business owners were opressing the working class, all while maintaining their own positions. It was specifically a shot across the bow of the nobility to point towards their clear hypocricy. This is what happens when you don't actually read Marx's writings, you just mindlessly try to quote-mine it. You did the same thing in his letters to France, ignoring his calls for government that could be recalled by the electorate and a government voted into power.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "They are suitable for industrial modes of production like the 19th century and are poorly suited for post-industrial economies like 21st century United States." Nonsense. Aside from the fact that unions for plenty of jobs that don't involve 19th century style factories exist, including in the 20th century when union membership was at an all-time high, I cannot think of a single reason current jobs cannot unionise. Teachers have unions, as do figherfighters, police officers, any trade job you can think of, pilots and more. Not to mention the current members of some of the old industries still holding hundreds of thousands of members. These include auto workers, steelworkers, machinists, carpenters, longshoremen and warehouse workers, postal workers and more. Not to mention the current unions for food processing, healthcare and even more recently individual starbucks locations. Unions are in every single industry and are not limited to factories. "The wages, benefits and enfranchisement of unions is inferior to other career paths in modern economies" Total nonsense. Wages, benefits and enfranchisement are all higher in unions. "Unions were developed specifically for capitalist economies." Right, because workers were being exploited and wanted a stronger voice for themselves. So they banded together and created a democratic group of workers who would fight against private business owners for them. "Unions can never facilitate socialism" Well sure, unions don't own the means of production. They are however member owned organisations with democratic elections. "Unions will always be in capitalism, dealing with enterprise." Correct. Workers will band together and fight against the owners of their companies. The part you missed, which I already said before, is that if workers band together and simply own the company outright, we call it a worker cooperative. But if you think about it cooperatives function much the same as unions. "Trade unions will never be a socialist labor relations because this is a competitive (marxianly sectarian) and not collective allocation of the labor component of the means of production." In what way is a union capitalist. And I don't mean how do they argue with capitalists, I mean secifically how does a member owned group of workers with democratic election count as private ownership of the means of production? "The matxist call for worker unity is anti union." Unions are literally worker unity you spanner.
1
@ExPwner "Your claim was that someone else had to move down for someone else to move up." Right, because they are EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF THE POPULATION! Oh, and fun fact, if someone retires they move DOWN the income scale, meaning someone else will move UP the income scale. And yes, your initial claim is built off the idea that the top 20% of income earners growing massively in income while the bottom 4 quintiles did not, and that is somehow justifyable. You are claiming that somehow the top quintile growing in total population means that the bottom 4 quintiles should just suck it up, ignoring that all 4 of the lower quintiles also grew in population in this same time period. It's still 80% of the population with minimal income growth while 20% grew massively. Nothing you say will ever change that. The best you have come up with is that people are retiring, but that was true 50 years ago as well. Do you think that people didn't retire in the 70s? Yes yes yes, I know you are but what am I. Honestly, the fact that you've mentioned me calling you an incel about a dozen times already shows how deep that cut goes. Let me know when you move out of your parent's basement and get some real life experience.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You seem to have confused what Marx described as feudal socialism with his entries on utopian socialism. Go back and read his point on feudal socialism then try again.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I was aware that Mussolini used to be a sydicalist. It is however irrelevant as his final political and economic view was world away from sydicalism. Maybe try reading a single theory on what syndicalism actually is before embarrassing yourself again.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, not all human rights were developed 300 years ago. There were plenty missing. Russia DID support the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and that is relevant as why would a country support something that you claim is fundamentally opposite to their entire political infrastructure. The Civil Rights act was progressive. It didn't end progressivism. Russia still lacks human rights. Hate to break it to you, but society preferring to not have democracy doesn't make it moral.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, businesses allocate. Unions put pressure on businesses.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. The only way your term "collectivist control" is correct is if it refers to control BY the collective, not OF the collective.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Marx did not use market socialism, so no, I do not use Marx as all of socialism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Open markets can't be racist" God you're dumb.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 If you want to consider the ownership of a business as a government then we can do that. Why do you support authoritarian ownership of businesses?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 No, I just have to show Lenin was not elected, which he wasn't. His control of the nation was not common ownership.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, unions do not allocate the labour means of production. Market socialism, ie a worker cooperative, would absolutely allocate the means of production. No, there is no outgroup.
1
@ExPwner Oh, unions are not socialist? So we agree that the nazi "union" is not evidence of socialism?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 At least we agree the Nazis were capitalists.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Oh, and no, Marx did not advocate for a brutal dictatorship of one class over others. He advocated for an egalitarian society where leaders are elected from the working class and could be recalled by the working class. The reason this isn't an ingroup is because in Marxism everyone is a member of the working class.
1
@ExPwner Again, Marx believe all people should be a single class. You can't divide by class in a classless society.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 1. The US constitution absolutely did not cover all human rights and had to be outright changed multiple times to bring it even remotely in line with UN standards. 2. The US constitution still fails to uphold multiple human rights, most notably rights 4, 24 and 25.
1
@ExPwner Policies like selling off government assets, destroying unions and banning socialism? We've been over this James you pathetic incel.
1
@willnitschke "But Common ownership means government ownership" Nope. Wow you're confused. "I strongly suggest you stop reading ideological bullshit and serious economic texts instead." Considering you have yet to even review the source I suggest you do the same. "Your brain is blank so there is a lot to fill in there..." He says, ignoring sources and acting like a moron. I'm not the one ignorant on ownership. There are 3 types Will, but you can only name 2.
1
Free healthcare would be a good start. You would also have ownership in the business you work in, giving you dividends when the company turns a profit.
1
@partydean17 "what if I'd rather keep my merit based bonus?" The token you recieve will always be smaller than the profits in the long run. "The profits can be a bigger incentive for upper management to do a good job, they also don't get a merit bonus guaranteed." If everyone shared in profits then would you all have a merit based incentive? "I know several upper management that have not made profit based bonuses for years at a time. I'd rather not have the same limitation." So you would rather keep recieving your minor bonus over dividends, combined with the ability to vote on company direction and leadership? You're also confusing profit based bonuses with actual profits. "Or I'm guessing this has to do with some legal limit to the profits our investors are allowed to see. Because I would be cutting into that. " You can't just cut into it. It's all based on common ownership. You have to collectively agree with everyone else working there. "Have any socialist worked out the numbers on those transfers of ownership?" Depends on the method used to do it. Some advocate for companies paying off current owners over time, while others advocate for a partitional shift over time slowly moving the markets in one direction. Vietnam currently has more incentives for cooperatives, meaning they have about a quarter of their workforce in cooperatives right now. "Also would "free" Healthcare just be an expanded Medicare? Would private insurance be illegal?" There are many systems for socialised medicine. Expanding insurance is one option, however most European nations with functioning models advocate for the government to purchase and build hospitals and medical proctices, eliminating the billing cycle entirely. And no, private insurance and private hospitals would still be legal, as they are pretty much everywhere.
1
@partydean17 "Would this decision making have more to do with everyone voting on what my salary should be or more about what markets the company should move into or what jobs have become obsolete with technology and need the people repositioned? " More like, who should be running the company. Salaries would actually be out in the open for everyone, meaning they would be far more equal. "Either way I appreciate you answering although I don't see any major changes yet to how my life works due to this except for maybe having >10% less money from my paycheck on a chance to save on a big medical expense." This is actually interesting, as the US spends more on healthcare per capita than any other country in the world. If anything, a socialised healthcare system would save you money. It's also not ideal to just assume you won't incur a large expense. But I get it. Worker cooperatives tend to be a lot more necessary for lower skill workers. You seem to be in a skilled profession that benefits greatly from the current system, but I don't believe that all workers would struggle to benefit the way you personally do. I suppose the real question is, on both of these topic, do you value your own personal takehome pay over the collective good of the workers.
1
@partydean17 Well of course, it's not like you're being malicious. There are other benefits to a national system. Things like nationwide bargaining power means that drug prices are dirt cheap in other countries compared to the US. The NHS even posts the prices for different procedures, and while dental is only covered for children, prices are maintained for adults at rock-bottom prices compared to the US. Checkups including xrays and cleanings are only about $30. Fillings and root canals are less than $100. Also, if you get multiple fillings or root canals done at the same time it's just 1 price, not per tooth. Compare that to the US and I'm being quoted at hundreds per tooth. I think it's a little condecending to say that you are keeping workers away from having power over their own jobs because you don't trust them. "I kept you in the dark to protect you" is one of the worst things someone can say. Well again, the changes would be salaries and compensations. Low-income wages have been stagnant for decades now. Cooperatives also tend to use wage ratios to guarantee fair pay, meaning the highest paid employee cannot earn a certain ratio more than the lowest paid, which allows for fairer distributions. As said, salaries would be open, as would business expenses, expenditures, revenues, budgets et cetera as every employee is part owner. It just creates a lot more open knowledge and a more fair environment. The sort of capitalistic abuse would more likely be in the form of things like stock buybacks, owners draws, high salaries, benefits for some employees that low-wage earners don't see and other dramatic differences in compensations. Cooperatives would still have a market, and therefore planned obsolescence would still be a thing, however I certainly agree that working towards ending that should be a real goal for a society. I suppose one could argue for planned obsolescence to be a criminal offence that could be investigated, but anyway. Considering the poor workers have not really gone anywhere in 4 decades, I think it's difficult for them to get hit any more than they already have. There are certainly ways to invest in cooperatives that guarantee a return without giving equity through loans.
1
 @1stsampan Total nonsense. Housing programs don't make people poorer.
1
@1stsampan You did.
1
@1stsampan Again, you openly advocated for ending government programs. You personally doing well does not mean anyone can do well.
1
@1stsampan You mean like when you said the rich would be poorer and the poor would be poorer still. And no, socialism is not a one party dictatorship. Things like government housing, food stamps, socialised medicine and more are all socialist programs.
1
@1stsampan Well there are no purely socialist countries, just as there are no purely capitalist ones. Countries use degrees of socialism and capitalism. As a result many nations socialise things like medicine, natural resources, housing for the homeless, unemployment insurance, schools, university costs...you get the point.
1
@1stsampan I would argue that Cuba doesn't fulfil the criteria of a socialist country as it fails to meet the main goal of socialism, which is to put the means of production into common control. At a government level this would require a democratically elected government, allowing the people to decide who is in charge of these commonly controlled assets, and forcing accountability on that government. The whole point of socialism was always common ownership, or social ownership as you may call it instead, meaning authoritarians and dictators just don't qualify. They may have begun with socialism in mind, or even socialist rhetoric, but the end result was just the same as any monarchy. Social welfare in democractic nations however does fulfil that criteria. We democratically elect a government, and that government manages social welfare programs on our behalf. If we don't like the management then we can vote in new leadership to manage it instead. The more democratic the government of these nations, the more socialistic the government run services are. So yes, social programs are not inherently socialism, they require democratically elected governments to be socialism.
1
@1stsampan Nonsense. There is nothing to back your assertion.
1
@1stsampan You are an anecdote.
1
@1stsampan Not sure you know what an anecdote is Edward. It means that your personal experience is meaningless towards the grand scheme of things. Sitting there and saying that you personally did well several decades ago has absolutely no bearing on how anyone else did then, and even less bearing on how people are doing now.
1
@1stsampan I guess that's why houses cost more, low paying jobs pay less, and every entry level job requires 5 year experience. You really are clueless of the job market and the cost of goods aren't you. And again, just because you did okay, doesn't mean everyone else did.
1
 @1stsampan Which is a bad argument for 2 reasons: 1. It's incorrect. Plenty of smart people get screwed. 2. So what about the dumb people? Do you not care about them?
1
@1stsampan Jesus Christ, it's like talking with someone with straight up dementia. Here, let me put it into more simple terms. If you aren't lucky and/or smart then you get screwed. I personally don't advocate for a system where people have to be lucky or smart just to afford basic human rights. It's that simple.
1
@ExPwner James the pathetic shadown is here I see. Projecting your own lack of employment onto me again I see. As I told you, I have a job James, you don't. Projecting your own bias sources on to me again, I use independent sources and scientific paper, you use loony right-wingers. Let me know when you have an actual point that needs refuted.
1
 @ExPwner Someone doesn't know how tech jobs work.
1
 @willnitschke Ah yes, all that state owned capitalism.....
1
 @1stsampan Must be why boomers are all soft in the head.
1
 @willnitschke The military doesn't provide a service? I was right, boomers are soft in the head.
1
 @willnitschke So you think the military is capitalism? Just trying to get a straight and coherent answer out of you.
1
 @willnitschke Wonderful, so we agree that the military is not capitalism.
1
 @willnitschke Nope, but you got 1 right. What's funny is in your definition social welfare is still socialism.
1
 @willnitschke In this context, yes.
1
@willnitschke "Great. You admit that Socialism to you means "spending capitalist's money"." It can, yes, although most of the money is from individual income, not capitalist profits. "Of course, since you also want to destroy capitalism this creates a funding issue." The free market would still exist, but the capitalists would not. Learn the difference champ.
1
 @willnitschke Free market economy, not a capitalist one. You just don't understand the difference. But please, continue to tell me more about your health insurance.
1
@willnitschke Capitalism is when the means of production are owned privately. Free markets are when the markets are not guided or regulated by the state. Market socialism is a free market system without the capitalism. So yes, they are different, you're welcome. Even if you argue that capitalism requires a free market, free markets do not require capitalism, as explained.
1
 @ExPwner Lol.
1
 @willnitschke The detriment of you more like. Regulation protect people from businesses.
1
Except Richard Wolff I advocating for market socialism, so those arguments are entirely irrelevant. Want to do the body count for people dying of preventable diseases in capitalist nations?
1
@pauldorasil5114 Not really hard to see Richard Wolff is a market socialist. Maybe try listening to him. Now I know you're not serious. The US has almost zero socialised medicine. Unless you are a veteran your healthcare will be private, end of story. It's also the most expensive on the planet. As for preventable deaths, your really need to look at the broader picture here. Poverty is the leading cause of reduced life expectancy, with those in poverty in the US losing years, or sometimes even over a decade off their lives. The echos of segregation continue to cause issues with how long people live, as large industrial projects sit next to African American communities. So the slow creep of capitalism is simply a removal of human rights, leading to a lowering of life expectancy.
1
@willnitschke Yes, there is such a thing as market socialism. Richard Wolff after all is debating in behalf of it in this very discussion. Medicare and Medicaid are insurance, not healthcare. The care is privatised. The poorest countries in the world are capitalist. Always nice when you chime in to rub shit up the walls Will.
1
@willnitschke No, they are insurance. How do you not know something this basic? There are no Medicare hospitals. There are hospitals that take Medicare coverage. Medicare and Medicaid even have plans you can pick, with different copays and out of pockets. I understand this is foreign to you as you live in a civilised nation, so you are forgiven your ignorance. Way to avoid naming the actual poor nations, who are also capitalist. Why not name some nations that tried capitalism and crashed their economies as a result. I'm not the one defining a means of production as "consumption" Will, that's you. There has to be a product for something to be consumed. You can't just have pure consumption as you claim.
1
@willnitschke "Insurance is something you purchase, not receive for free as an entitlement" Who said free? We pay taxes. The only people who say free are parasites who leech of society. Typical Will. "Oh and you can have "pure consumption"." Like?
1
@willnitschke "You don't receive insurance by paying taxes either" Yes you do. In fact in the UK we literally call it National Insurance, because it is health insurance. There is also unemployment insurance and others, but you get the point. Lose your job? Unemployment insurance. Get sick? Health insurance. Become disabled? Disability insurance. They literally call the payment to people with disabilities Social Security Disability Insurance. Again, there are no Medicare or Medicaid hospitals. Insurance pays for the care, but does not provide it. The care is private. As the Social Security Administration says on their website: "Medicaid is a jointly funded, Federal-State health insurance program for low-income and needy people." "Medicare is our country's health insurance program for people age 65 or older." You really don't know what insurance is do you.
1
@willnitschke Glad to see you have no real response. National socialism doesn't fit the definition of socialism. National insurance does fit the definition of insurance. You're also ignoring many nations governments calling it insurance. "a practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium." See.
1
@willnitschke "The response was that adding a word in front of another word typically means you're talking about a different thing." Almost as if different words have different meanings Will. One can be true without the other being true. National insurance is insurance because it fits the definition of insurance. People pay a premium through taxation and recieve medical insurance coverage. All the doctors that accept Medicare and Medicaid insurance are private doctors, as there are no Medicare or Medicaid doctors. National Socialism however is a political plot that continues to trick morons like yourself, where Hitler and his party tricked socialist into joining his fascism party, then killed them for the pleasure. "You had no response, and just doubled down on your bullshit, which is simply that any word you use means whatever you feel it should mean" No, it's that words have actual distinct meanings, and that you shouldn't eat urinal cakes. So thanks for making yourself look stupid while claiming otherwise.
1
@MckensyLong Sounds like we should advocate against that too then.
1
 @willnitschke You're making the same mistake it would seem. Maybe listen to Wolff so he can educate you.
1
@willnitschke Your mistake is that you don't know what market socialism is, even after Wolff explained it in this debate. Your continued ignorance is either willful, or a result of you not actually watching the debate. Honestly, it's probably both, but I digress.
1
@willnitschke Worker cooperatives. We've been over this lol. Try again kid.
1
@ExPwner lol
1
@willnitschke You're missing a type of ownership, common ownership. This can be done both through a market, or through state, but requires common control by the people in both instances. There is nothing capitalist about worker cooperatives as there is no private ownership, only common ownership. They do however work within a free market system. Owner-operated businesses however fit the criteria of both private and common ownership, as there is only one employee owning the means of production in common. Owner operated businesses do not exploit labour either.
1
@willnitschke Obviously you still don't understand the difference between a worker cooperative and a corporation. Worker cooperatives are owned and controlled by the workers, the people producing the products for sale. Corporations are controlled by capitalists. Cooperatives allow people to own their own means of production, with dividends for their work directly paying the workers. Corporations allow investors to profit of the work of others. Learn the difference champ.
1
@willnitschke Not just a right to work there, a right to vote on company policy, vote in leadership and earn dividends. But hey, so long as you finally learned the difference between corporations and cooperatives.
1
@willnitschke Nope. Dividends are paid to owners. They aren't even taxed the same. Worker cooperatives pay perfectly well. The difference is they ALSO pay dividends and give voting and ownership rights. Again, you have confused worker cooperatives for corporations. In an effort to see the differences, you have just failed to see the point. Your tiny brain cannot comprehend the difference.
1
@willnitschke Dividends are literally paid to owners, you stated this yourself. No, worker cooperatives do not pay poorly. Not only do they have pay parity and pay ratios to keep wages more even between staff, they also pay dividends. But again, if you are trying to argue that worker cooperatives are not owned collectively by the workers, then who owns them. Because remember, an elected representative in a leadership position only represents the workers, they do not own anything based on their position. You said so yourself.
1
@willnitschke Owners receive dividends. They get paid dividends because they are owner. You made a positive claim, back up your claim about pay difference or drop it. Yes, being a member of a worker cooperative makes you an owner. Yes, consumer cooperatives are also owned by members. You left off dividends and voting rights, both of which are owner benefits. So again, if the members do not own the business, then who does? According to you the answer would be nobody.
1
 @willnitschke Copying your dipshittery and posting it again doesn't make you correct.
1
@willnitschke I agree. So why are you repeating yourself?
1
@willnitschke I agree that you repeating the same bullshit that I have already debunked shows that you can't even do elementary logic. Thanks again. Watching you insult yourself is actually funny.
1
 @willnitschke Already did. Your ignorance is not a measure of facts.
1
 @willnitschke You were.
1
 @willnitschke When did you stop beating your wife?
1
 @willnitschke Sounds like deflection. Why are you so scared to answer the question? Are you just upset over being asked a question? Is it because you still beat your wife, correct?
1
@ExPwner You alt won't save you Will.
1
@ExPwner Projecting your own alt status onto me just makes you look worse.
1
@ExPwner Oof, copying me now. This is just sad. Shoo alt.
1
 @willnitschke Wrong account again James. You're getting really sloppy.
1
@willnitschke More projection of your mental illness I see. You should get checked out.
1
 @willnitschke You can't have these things without taxes. Entrepreneurship also does not require capitalism, but a free market.
1
 @ExPwner Can't wait for you to present your idea for impartial private police. I'll wait.
1
 @ExPwner More like can't.
1
@willnitschke Oof, the cope. You keep sounding more and more butthurt.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 I love it when someone argues democracy is authoritarian. Imagine applying that same logic to a nation, especially when you openly argue that democratic workplaces are a type of government. I guess you just love authoritarianism. What's next? Freedom is slavery? War is peace? Ignorance is strength? It just boils down to the paradox of tolerance really.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You seem to be confused about my point on businesses. If you claim that businesses are run by governments, that there is no logical reason to argue that a democratic business has a government but a non-democratoc business does not have a government. It would instead be a different form of government. Therefore, socialist worker cooperatives use democracy to decide who is part of the business government, while capitalist business use a system of authoritarian oligarchy. As for your examples of democratic authoritarianism, neither were democratic. The US banned about 75% of adults from voting, and Russian elections were, and still are, a sham. Both relied on minority rule, which is the exact opposite of democracy, which is a majority rule system. So in arguing that socialist workplaces have governments you unwittingly showed that capitalist workplaces are dictatorships. And in presenting Russia and pre-civil war US into the mix, you openly admit that you have no clue what democracy actually is.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You did that. You claimed businesses are run by governments.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So we agree that your point about worker cooperatives having governments is nonsense. And again, paradox of intolerance.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it. So Mondragon is run by a democratic government. Therefore non-democratic businesses are run by what exactly? Oh right, totalitarian dictatorship.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Now let's apply your logic to nations. Oh look, fascism.
1
@ExPwner Not sure you know what totalitarianism is. And no, it's not democracy. Democracy literally means people power. If the people do not have the power then it isn't democracy. But tell me more about your failed definitions. I always love to hear them.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 The fact that you think democracy makes society inept. Spare me your authoritarian nonsense.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "labor organized in unions by state force" But you already said multiple times that unions only exist in capitalism. So thanks for admitting fascism is actually capitalism.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Imagine writing repeating and completely inept comments such as yours then calling someone else a spammer 🤣 So again, you believe democracy is a substitute for competency. You clearly dislike democracy and believe we should be authoritarian. And no, authoritarianism is about strict obedience to an authority. Fun fact, that's literally every capitalist business owner. And that's also the opposite of democracy, which is about the people having the power, not some singular authority.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Yes, we know fascists were capitalists.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it, so we're just making stuff up. Let me know when a capitalist business owner let's you do whatever you want.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Part of that agreement is submitting to the commands of an absolute authority. Again, you claim that democracy gives people less personal freedoms. You are an authoritarian mate. Just accept it.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Enlightenment was great at ending monarchies, but struggled to end slavery or help the poor. But please, tell me more about individualism being better than welfare. Again, you claim that democracy is a dictatorship. At this point I think you just want to turn the US government into an oligarchy. You already agreem fascism was capitalist.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 "Telling employees....that they need to operate operate in a specific way is authoritarianism." Starting to think you've literally never had a job in your life.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Weird you would say the USSR was socialist, given they also had trade unions. Sounds like capitalism to me. Didn't you also argue the Germany Labour Front was a union? That's capitalism too then. I'm starting to see a theme.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, you continue to push this idea that democracy is a removal of choice. It's utterly mad to believe this.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 My ellipses doesn't change the fact that your think telling employees what to do is authoritarian.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 At least you agree neither the Soviets nor the Nazis had unions. Where is James when you need him?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Again, look up the paradox on intolerance. It will really help you with this whole "voting against democracy" issue.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Not sure how the ability to elect any worker as a leader of your company, including yourself, and the ability to vote on any choice within your company, and the choice to work somewhere else can be seen as "1 choice only". It's not like capitalist monopolies and their "work here or starve" policies.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Got it. So if an employer asked you to do something that you were not hired for under threat of firing you could just say no? Oh right, you can't, because the subsequent financial hit of getting fired may result in you losing your home or going without food.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Look at you not knowing what sydicalism is.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You really need to just look up the paradox of tolerance.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Imagine thinking exploiting people is "ethical". You can't call yourself ethical while allowing unethical practices under the guise of "choice". By your logic outlawing anything is unethical as it removes choice.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Can't wait for you to argue the role of state banning slavery is a unilateral socialist ideal 🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@ExPwner Democracy literally means people power. The word is derived from "demos" meaning the people, and "kratia" meaning power or rule. So you could call it rule by the people, power of the people, or simply people power.
1
@ExPwner The right to vote is an individual liberty. You are eroding liberties by trying to advocate for your authoritarian wet dream.
1
@ExPwner Stop advocating for exploitation fascist.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 By banning a form of ownership. Funny that.
1
@ExPwner Here's a little thought experiment for you Jimmy. An immigrant family from a war-torn country needs to escape. They have no money, but a rich American offers them a deal. Free passage to the states, and they agree to work for them for 10 years to pay back the cost of transit. They will also live in lodging provided and will be charged for the rental from their work. After all their monthly expenses are paid, they are left with just $5 of income. Was this family exploited?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So when they banned indentured servitude you clearly got upset.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 So the government banned the right to freely enter into a contract. How odd.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Right, by banning a form of free contract. Wait, hold on.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Aww, all sad after being caught in your own BS? Your authoritarian nuts are all the same.
1
@ExPwner You just called Soul a smoothbrain.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Economics points to capitalism naturally leading to monopolies and an accumulation of wealth for a small minority. Political science will show that democracy is vastly superior to oligarchy. And human rights strongly favour socialism, especially positive human rights not guaranteed under capitalism. You authoritarians are nuts.
1
@ExPwner So you have no arguments and act as a cheerleader. Typical waste of space ancap incel.
1
@ExPwner That's right everyone. Giving people food is slavery. Your genius ancap incel has spoken.
1
@ExPwner Just saw your recent video. Imagine how utterly embarrased you will be when you realise your own source says that "The Soviet Union proclaimed itself a socialist state" as if we should just take their word for it rather than actually reviewing their economy. What's next? North Korea is a democracy because their name says so? Can't wait for you to eat some urinal cakes because their name has the word cake in it. Honestly, this is the level of research rigor I expect out of a 5 year old or a simpleton, not a grown adult living with his parents...well I suppose that makes sense actually. Even Soul admits Italy was a capitalist state in the 30s under Mussolini, making him about 2 years more capable than you. As for Soviet Russia's economy, in what way did Lenin or Stalin differ from Feudal royalty? Or are you so infantile you think feudalism is socialist? Regardless, calling a system run by an unelected anti-democratic autocrat a socialist state would be like calling capitalism a call for human rights.
1
@ExPwner Tell me more about this lack of monopolies in capitalism, despite all of human history pointing to the exact opposite of this. In fact my faourite example of this is your own example of Chicago and the electical companies. They told the existing companies that they would be allowed to monopolise if they wished (and did not force them to do so) and if they did they would be required to show they are giving fair value to customers. So not only were they only given the option to monopolise, but doing so would not allow them to make as much of a profit as they would have pricing restrictions. What did these companies do? Oh right, they immediately formed into a single entity and monopolised the electrical grid of Chicago, despite the government restrictions that called for fair market pricing. Why did they do this even though they had the option not to? Surely the freedom to price how they want is greater than the power of a monopoly. Is that's that what you always say? That a free market will prevail? Oh right, because every single person knows that a monopoly is vastly more beneficial to business owners than competition, even you. So please, tell me more about capitalist stopping monopolies despite government banning monopolies and capitalists jumping at the chance to monopolise as soon as a single loophole is established.
1
@ExPwner Try again. Government did not form a monopoly. The law states that they were legally allowed to form a monopoly. Not only was it not mandated, but it came with market restrictions. Yet again, you fail at history and logic.
1
@ExPwner Yes it was. Sorry you hate human rights.
1
@ExPwner I self identify as correct. Therefore I am correct. You lose the argument. See how dumb that is? That's why listening to propaganda and accepting it at fact value never works. Your own source uses a self-descriptor rather than facts about their actual policies.
1
@ExPwner It wasn't a monopoly already because monopolies were illegal.
1
@ExPwner State ownership is not the definition of socialism. Your constant attempt to strawman your opponents position doesn't change reality. Socialism is common ownership, not state or private.
1
@ExPwner Glad you agree that argument is wrong and therefore arguing that the USSR is socialist just because they say so is "complete and utterly stupid".
1
@ExPwner Yet you can literally find writings from people at the time of the USSR openly stating that it is not socialist. Chomsky wrote about it in '83, I suggest giving it a read.
1
@ExPwner As has been explained to you, likely hundreds of times by now, socialism is not about state ownership or state control. Even Marx and Engels wrote about socailism as a third type of ownership, separate from any private or state ownership, and instead a third type of ownership that is common. This has been true for all types of socialism. Otherwise, socialism would just be a monarchy, which makes absolutely no sense. Your definition is flawed because it goes against both the writings of socialists, but also the literal reason for socialism existing in the first place.
1
@ExPwner The writings you found are by lying idiots with no credibility. Chomsky as other authors around the time that agree with his view are actually correct.
1
@ExPwner I'm glad you clearly haven't bothered to read what Chomsky wrote. Go running and crying to the CATO Institute so they can tell you what to say again.
1
@ExPwner Until you learn to stop playing the strawman game any discussion with you is meaningless.
1
@ExPwner I'm sure the economy will do just fine when every single stock you buy could lose you your home lol. Jesus James. Nobody is advocating for a violation of rights by arguing against the exploitation of labour.
1
@ExPwner It's irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with the original topic, accountability. You're just dodging the point because the idea of actually holding businesses accountable to the law is impossibly in an ancap system. So now you're just claiming that labour is never exploited? Not immigrants, not slavery, not indentured servants? You straight up don't believe labour exploitation exists?
1
@ExPwner Again, I'm not the one dodging. Limited liability has nothing to do with holding corporations accountable. Limited liability holds individuals accountable, not the corporations. I'll just ignore everything else you said as I don't think you want me pointing out your assertion that livery isn't labour exploitation.
1
@ExPwner What an odd autocorrect. Pretty sure livery is a uniform for officials...anyway, as I was saying, corporate accountability is not the same as individual accountability. Slave labour is a form of labour exploitation, so your assertion that labour exploitation doesn't exist is nonsense.
1
@ExPwner Who said they wouldn't exist? I mean it's cute that you think they wouldn't, but it's not realistic. Also, that just means all businesses would be non-corporate private holdings, which ancaps would also not hold accountable. No, we're talking about labour exploitation. Labour in slavery is voluntary according to your definition. You can choose not to work right?
1
@ExPwner Not sure why you think any private arbitration would: 1. Be listened to. 2. Be unbiased. Same goes for cops. It's a ridiculous notion.
1
@willnitschke Yeah it is. No private entity could possibly have the authority without government backing.Also love the copying me, very flattering.
1
 @willnitschke Aww, did logic confused you?
1
 @ExPwner Great, and how is that enforced?
1
@ExPwner Oh look, a company decided to ignore the private arbitrator. Oh no, whatever shall happen? Oh right, nothing.
1
 @willnitschke Nah, customers still buy their goods. Why would ignoring some private arbitrator stop customers?
1
@ExPwner Why would customers care what some private arbitrator says?
1
@willnitschke So they wouldn't, got it. It really depends on the specific issue as well. For example maybe a mining company is poisoning drinking water, or had some miners die in a collapse, or decided to shoot some locals who were getting annoyed at them. Who would stop them? They have money, private security and zero regard for some arbitration committee bullshit.
1
@ExPwner Those private services have government to back them up with laws. Your fantasy doesn't have that, so why would any company give a shit? What's worse, I'm pointing to legitimate issues with your ideology, and you're calling it MY fantasy. Hold fuck that's rich.
1
@ExPwner Yeah it is.
1
@ExPwner You're right, the specific group having leverage and power is. Laws are laws because we give power to a state, who then decide what those laws are and enforce them accordingly. Where does the power come from James? Who forces these businesses to do anything. And this isn't even stepping on the idea of arbitrator corruption. I mean it's a joke.
1
 @ExPwner he only people with nothing to back it up are private arbitrators. You claim a system like this will work with no evidence and counter to all logic.
1
@ExPwner And they are backed by government legal systems. Without that you just have an empty threat.
1
@ExPwner Then stop repeating the same stupid claim. Your idea is both worthless as it holds no legal status, and corrupt as it has no oversight. It would be bought and paid for by every big company in the nation. In fact, smart companies would just set up their own private arbiters and would run all arbitration through them. It's totally worthless as an idea. You aren't living in reality.
1
@ExPwner Source? Oh right, you're the one making a positive claim and you have nothing to back it up.
1
 @ExPwner So you withdraw your idiotic claim about private arbitrators. Thank god, I was embarrassed for you.
1
@ExPwner "so after being exposed for your dumb claim and me backing up mine" With what? What did you back up this idiotic claim of private arbitration that has ZERO backing from any authoritive entity? Oh right, you didn't. It's a total fantasy land James. "then you got caught lying and projecting you just come back to troll." Yes, that is what you do, constantly. "got proven wrong with available current models" The available current models all work within a system of rules and laws created by government. You are asking to remove that. It would simply not function. Large companies would either ignore them or buy them. "and then got very angry at being held to account for spewing stupid claims he couldn’t back up so he resorted to the usual projection tactics." You can't back up shit, but by all means keep claiming that ancap world wouldn't be a total shithole.
1
@ExPwner You can't back your shit up because you are using the current system to base it on, the one backed by government. You have no ground to stand on.
1
@ExPwner More worthless nonsense from you. You don't get to compare a system that works due to government rules and regulations to your fantasy land of bullshit.
1
@ExPwner You proved it worked in a world with a government that supports it, not your fantasy.
1
@ExPwner Yes, you did do that.
1
@ExPwner You ignoring both papers and valid criticism isn't an argument, it's just your hypocrisy.
1
@willnitschke The paper openly states it needs more data and does not control for a whole host of variables. It also uses very broad groupings for businesses and employee jobs. It does not control for location at all. The fact that cooperatives have substantially less capital on hand should be a clue as to the differences in markets and industries. So thanks for proving you yet again cannot read scientific papers.
1
@ExPwner "It was done already in one small location idiot" It was actoss the entire country. "And again that is NOT the topic of this thread which was you making claims about arbitration" I'm not the one that posted a paper about worker cooperatives, you were. "that YOU did not back up with evidence." The claims about private arbitration were made by you. You claimed that the current private arbitration, the one that is backed by government laws and regulations, would function exactly the same way in an ancap society, despite the obvious contradictions. You have shown nothing to support this other than pointing to the current government supported system.
1
@ExPwner "You claimed that they wouldn’t function without government" Because they rely on government. "I never claimed that they would work exactly the same." But you did claim they would work, something you have yet to support.
1
@ExPwner Nope, you didn't. Show an example of private arbitration without government setting laws to manage the process.
1
@ExPwner Where? Name the example.
1
@ExPwner So you still have no examples of arbitration working in a nation without government backing?
1
@ExPwner "don’t need to. I have no such burden of proof." Oh good, so you are NOT making the claim that private arbitration will work in a state with no government oversight. Cool, thanks. Honestly, watching you withdraw your points over and over because you know you can't defend them is just sad.
1
@ExPwner "that’s odd because I never made claims I couldn’t back up whereas you did" You still have yet to support your claim of private arbitration working without a government framework. "Where is your proof that they wouldn’t work without government?" You mean you want me to disprove a claim you never even made? "so you refuse to back up your claim that government is responsible for arbitration working?" So you refuse to back up your claim that government is not responsivel for arbitration working? That they can function independently.
1
@ExPwner "I never made such claims." Wonderful, so we agree that your idea for private arbitration to take over from the current government aparatus in an Ancap world is NOT something you support.
1
@ExPwner "are you going to retract your claim since you refuse to support it?" It's your claim dude lol. "okay since you clearly are refusing to support your claim that arbitration requires the government to function" You have yet to support your claim that it doesn't.
1
@ExPwner You claimed it would champ. Again, are you running from your claim?
1
@ExPwner Your entire premise is it working in an ancap world.
1
@ExPwner Hey, so long as you run from your claim, which you are. Cry more James.
1
 @ExPwner You claimed private arbitration would work in your ancap paradise. Everything else you said is just sad projection as you get all defensive over your idea being shit on.
1
@ExPwner Wonderful, so you have no solution for enforcing contracts in an ancap world.
1
 @ExPwner Again, current day arbitration has government to enforce laws and back up the processes. Your claim is that it would work WITHOUT that. YOU have to support that claim.
1
@ExPwner Oh good, so you aren't claiming that. So how would contracts be enforced in your ancap world?
1
@ExPwner Where is your source it will work without government. Hell, where is your source it works now and doesn't fuck people over?
1
@ExPwner That's not a source. You made a claim it WOULD work without government. Where is your source?
1
@ExPwner "no I didn’t. You made that up and attributed it to me." Oh good. So how would contract enforcement work in an ancap world?
1
@ExPwner You mean the claim it would. Source? Can you not support your claim? Are you backing off from it again?
1
@ExPwner I reject your claim that it would work without government, given that was your original point. My point wins by default. I also reject your claim that it works at all. You need to back that up.
1
 @ExPwner So now you have no solution for ancap contract enforcement.
1
@ExPwner So again, how would contracts be resolved in an ancap world?
1
@ExPwner Right, so how would that work?
1
 @ExPwner So you have no answer.
1
@ExPwner So you have no answer and choose to lie over explaining your position. Typical James.
1
Did the slaves have democracy? Athenian government also had an entire portion made up of people selected by a random lottery. This is not a form of democracy. In fact in this way Athens was a form of non-democratic republic.
1
@ExPwner So did the slaves have democracy?
1
@ExPwner James, it's a simple question. Did Athenian slaves, all 150,000 of them, have a democratic vote? How about the women? Is a lottery system a form of democracy in your head? Why are you running from this comment thread? Run out of childish insults?
1
@ExPwner Again: Did Athenian slaves, all 150,000 of them, have a democratic vote?
1
@ExPwner If a portion of your population cannot vote, then that portion of the population doesn't have democratic representation. So yes, it matters. The claim that you can be a democracy while excluding more than half your residents from voting is laughable.
1
@Chazzz_Onomatopoeia Wait, do you genuinely think banning massive portions of your population from voting makes a valid democracy?
1
@Chazzz_Onomatopoeia Can't wait for you to tell me that slavery is freedom.
1
 @karenlp5867 Well exactly. Every single measure to improve rights, protections and benefits has been opposed by businesses.
1
 @ExPwner Yell it from the rooftops James, that will make it more true.
1
 @ExPwner Then why do you keep doing it?
1
@ExPwner Yes, you should quit lying and projecting.
1
@ExPwner You literally just lied about literacy rates, you can't help but lie about the definition of socialism as your entire argument stands on it, and you still can't admit that nothing the Nazis did wasn't socialism. You tried to use national covid stats to explain local and regional hospital bed shortages, when it was pointed out that corporatism is done by privately owned corporations you posted a definition that absolutely proved you wrong, then ignored it, you lied about Chicago utility companies claiming government forces them to monopolise, should I continue?
1
@ExPwner Nope, you lied. Stop posting libertarian nonsense and try something actually backed by a decent methodology. Schools reviewed the truth illiteracy problems, they did not cause them. What's worse, if literacy rates became worse under compulsory schooling, why did they actually improve from 1870 to 1930? And that was the timeframe where compulsory schooling became more and more adopted. It wasn't national for decades as Alabama didn't enact it until 1915, so your stats are totally off.
1
@ExPwner Your definition of socialism is wrong because it does not include market socialism. According to your definition Richard Wolff isn't even a socialist. The Nazis privatised industry, destroyed unions and ended democracy. They were not socialists, they were fascists.
1
@ExPwner Some where, not all. Literacy improved with schools.
1
@ExPwner If it doesn't exclude market socialism, then socialism cannot be state control, as market socialism is anarchistic.
1
@ExPwner Your "dozens of primary sources" agree that the Nazis sold off government assets to private business owners. They also prove that the unions were not unions at all, but state control of workers. That's not a union.
1
@ExPwner Wonderful, so socialism does NOT equal state control.
1
 @ExPwner All state control?
1
 @ExPwner Is that a yes or a no James. Does your definition call all forms of state control socialism?
1
@willnitschke It's actually very specific. Are all forms of state control considered socialism according to James's definition of the word? I know simple questions are hard for you, and complex ones make you curl up and cry, but do try.
1
@willnitschke "any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" Seems like you fucked up. Looks like socialism is egalitarian economic and political theories or movements, not "state control" as you so claim. Whoops.
1
 @willnitschke Right, like common ownership, like market socialism. Also, you just admitted welfare is socialism again. You're really bad at this.
1
 @ExPwner Yes they are.
1
@ExPwner Yes they are.
1
 @ExPwner Yes they are.
1
@willnitschke Because those 20 richest countries robbed everyone else. It should also be noted that being rich and giving people human rights are not the same thing. The fact that UAE is one of the richest places per capita is exactly why we shouldn't strive for money over everything else.
1
 @ExPwner Are you seriously denying colonialism?
1
@ExPwner History. I mean are you serious right now? The British stole about $45 trillion from India alone.
1
@ExPwner Funny you only see bollocks like that on colonial apologist websites from the right, and not actual reputable sources, like the dozens of actual people pushing out that number. Right wingers sure do love subjugation other nations.
1
@willnitschke Not really, I can find videos of people without health insurance being left on the street right now, but colonialism is important as it helps people understand why these European power houses came to be, and what that has to do with the current economies of those nations.
1
 @ExPwner There is nothing reputable about the bullshit colonial apologist stance you take. Stop supporting theft.
1
 @willnitschke Weird comment considering we're talking about colonialism. But hey, you came to male a strawman so build away.
1
 @ExPwner I didn't make up anything though, but keep supporting colonialism.
1
@ExPwner It's actually been reviewed and explained multiple times over. It was never "made up". But please, tell me of this wise analysis from people who say that the removal of literal tons of resources from regions for a fraction of a fraction of the true value that nation should have received is totally great and we should applaud it. Do you currently support children working in African mines, or only when the colonisers were busy stealing almost every precious gem in existence?
1
 @ExPwner Oh well, of you say so. Like everything else you claim "because James said so" seems to be enough.
1
 @ExPwner Well that's just silly. 90% of your "sources" are The Mises Institute and right-wing YouTube channels.
1
@willnitschke "So an economics society made up of professional and academic economists is not a good source because you say so?" It's not a good source because its unbelievably bias, with major people at their org being actively anti-science.
1
 @willnitschke No, they are.
1
@ExPwner So you think the 9/11 conspiracists touting climate change denialist, that are anti-MMR vax, deny that HIV causes AIDS, deny special relativity, and supports a variety of terrible ideas such as open support for human organ markets, zero accountability parenting to the point of abandoning children to die, and support for a variety of crimes including libel, blackmail and child porn...are somehow totally sane and not biased at all? Oh, and did I forget to mention is was founded by a Republican party staffer?
1
@willnitschke Biased.
1
@willnitschke More like for all the reasons I listed. Try reading.
1
 @willnitschke The reasons above.
1
 @willnitschke No, just you. You've been raving like a loon ITT.
1
 @willnitschke Actually I said you sound nuts, and now a bit butthurt.
1
 @ExPwner You literally handwaven away multiple economics professors, some of which are award winning, because they said something you disagree with. Get real James.
1
@ExPwner Yeah it did. You know you can just look him up right?
1
 @ExPwner Nah, I'm not here to make your argument for you. Either present it or admit you have none.
1
@ExPwner I presented an argument, you claim to have a refutation to that argument but have yet to actually present it. Your refutation is a positive claim, or do you withdraw it?
1
 @ExPwner You haven't given me anything James.
1
@ExPwner Still waiting.
1
 @ExPwner So you have nothing, nothing you can actually explain anyway.
1
 @willnitschke I know, that James has zero argument. What a moron.
1
 @willnitschke Ah, the old, socialism is when capitalism. Ridiculous.
1
 @ExPwner The only troll here is you James. You have yet to make a single point on any of the threads you have commented on.
1
 @ExPwner Aww, James is sulking. Catch a grip James.
1
 @ExPwner Silly lying James just can't handle facts.
1
 @willnitschke For starters, that you have failed to read arguments presented. This comment of yours being Exhibit A.
1
 @willnitschke You didn't explain it, therefore we both agree you don't understand it. Thanks Will.
1
 @willnitschke Correct, you can't explain it, therefore you do not understand it. Thanks for proving my point.
1
@willnitschke You can't explain anything can you?
1
 @willnitschke You're just confusing yourself now.
1
 @willnitschke Not people, just you. You are confused about the conversation, and have been for a while.
1
 @willnitschke I just did explain it, you are confused about the conversation, that is the confusion. You're confusing yourself again Will.
1
@willnitschke Pearls before swine champ. I've tried that before, you just feign ignorance. Go back and read it. If you're still confused then obviously you don't have the mental fortitude for a conversation. Why else would you post 50 comments rather than simply reading an existing comment. If you come back without having read and responded to it then obviously you cannot refute me and admit defeat.
1
@ExPwner Troll alt incoming.
1
 @ExPwner Sure James. Come back when you have something non-troll to say.
1
 @ExPwner Still waiting.
1
 @willnitschke Your logic is a joke. Try reading, then get back to me.
1
@willnitschke Your comment answers your own question.
1
 @willnitschke Ah yes, the tribes, that shared all their resources between members of the tribe and ensured everyone was taken care of...wait a second.
1
@willnitschke Well at least you're half right, they were indeed communistic, meaning any trade done was socialist trade, not capitalist. See, you're learning.
1
@willnitschke Again, nobody is against private property, just private business, of which there was none. So yes, it was communist. But keep whining your imaginary story about me. Must be because I'm living rent free.
1
@willnitschke "So just to confirm you're totally approving of people owning their own underpants but f**k anyone who wants to own anything of value, right?" Nope. Houses, cars, owner-operated businesses (which as you have pointed out are the vast majority) would all be fine. It would just end exploitation. "You want to give it all over to your Collectivist Boss" Again, you're just describing capitalism. "you think you'd be more successful in life sucking his cock rather than achieving something for yourself" Again, capitalism. Have you learned nothing?
1
@willnitschke Since the "collective" boss is boss over only themselves, a collective of one, they perfectly fit the definition. Also weird you still don't know what collectivism is.
1
@ExPwner Yes they are. The worker owns the product of their labour and the means of production directly related to what they produce. They do not expoit others to do so either. It's textbook market socialism. Everyone who works for the company has ownership of it. See, simple really. So thanks for not understanding how market socialism works...again.
1
@willnitschke A portion means that a portion is being removed. Thanks for making my point for me Will. Market socialism is worker cooperatives, which already exist. See how easy that was? And no, you obviously do not understand the word production, as you tried to claim that raw materials produce things, when in reality they are used to produce things by labourers. The issue is your misuse of language. So thanks again.
1
 @ExPwner You very clearly don't know what taxes are as you keep calling them theft. No wonder you aren't employed.
1
 @ExPwner Obviously you don't. Your sad interpretation of society is pretty pathetic.
1
@willnitschke Which is not taxes. Thanks dummy.
1
@ExPwner Your opinions are bad and you should feel bad. Meanwhile, in reality, taxes are not theft.
1
@willnitschke Oh dear, a single hour and you got lost. Let me know when you find the plot.
1
@willnitschke Literally told you, you got lost. You are confused over the topic of discussion.
1
@willnitschke "Sorry you didn't tell me" Wrong. Try reading. "otherwise you would have just told me' Already did. Do you need a carer to walk you through how to read comments from the past?
1
 @willnitschke You didn't say anything backed by sources. I'm not your mother, figure it out.
1
 @ExPwner Try reading some actual socialist writings. I'll wait.
1
 @ExPwner Ignoring sources now. How very lolbitarian of you.
1
@willnitschke Try presenting facts Will. It would make your argument at least have a point.
1
 @ExPwner Like?
1
 @willnitschke Still waiting for the first one. I'll let you know though.
1
@willnitschke I suppose when all you have are lie you have to pretend they are facts, correct? Stop lying Will.
1
@willnitschke None, as you have presented none.
1
 @willnitschke Like? I guess we can assume as you have no examples that you have no facts.
1
@ExPwner Nah, just lies. Try harder.
1
 @willnitschke The claim that facts were presented by you was a lie from James.
1
 @ExPwner Oh really? Where? Your inability to produce a fact is proof your are lying correct?
1
 @ExPwner Still no facts. Present them James.
1
 @willnitschke Allow me to apply your logic to James. Thanks for playing though Will.
1
@willnitschke Butthurt Willy flying in to save his boyfriend.
1
@ExPwner Yet here he is regardless. What a good guarddog. Let me know when the owning starts. Is it the part where you claim the people who literally theoriesed and invented the concept of socialism are not real socialists and we should ignore them?
1
@ExPwner Yes, the literal founders of socialism are the arbiters of what socialism is. That's a fact. Again, state capitalism is a term that has been used by non-socialist economists. I even posted some. Let me know when that logic you talk about kicks in.
1
@ExPwner "no they aren’t, because other people who came up with other forms also exist" Except they based their theories on these original ideas. Take communism. They claim to be directly working with the writings of Marx and Engels, but Marx and Engels didn't agree one bit with the systems that were put in place in supposed communist countries. Marx and Engels openly wrote about the need for a constitutional democracy, for the people to have ultimate ownership over the products of their own labour, over the means of production to be owned in common, et cetera. They did not at any point write about a non-democratic state that oppresses its people. Even the concept of a vanguard was taken wholey out of context. Marx and Engels wrote about a vanguard socialist political party that could lead the socialists as a singular unit until they could complete a democratic revolution, then split into multiple parties that would then allow the people to vote on various types of socialism. Russia never actually needed a vanguard party as their revolution was not democratic, they overthrew a class of slaveowners. So in 1917 when they had a socialist vote and the democratic socialists won, Lenin decided he didn't like that and started a war to instill his malformed idea of vanguardism. It was completely contradictor to the writings of their originator, and subsequently not Marxism, socialism or an effort to instill socialism at all. All you do get is authoritarianism, which is compeltely incompatible with the idea of giving ownership over to the people.
1
@ExPwner "The fascist socialists broke from Marx for example." They absolutely did break from Marx. They broke so far from Marx they were no longer socialists. See how that works?
1
@ExPwner I don't need to declare anything, the facts speak for themselves. You don't get to call it "a different form of socialism" when it matches none of the ideas of socialism. I could just as easily claim fascism is a form of capitalism because it evolved from capitalism. Ideas evolve from and are borne out of each other, that does not mean they are the same. By that logic capitalism and socialism don't exist at all, they are just versions of feudalism. See how dumb that is?
1
@ExPwner The primary sources disagree with you. The Nazis privatised, destroyed unions and ended democracy. All of those are anti-socialism. Maybe don't believe everything some internet "historian" says. Where in Nazi Germany did the workers own the means of production?
1
 @ExPwner No they don't. Government assets were sold off. The unions were no longer unions. Thanks for proving you don't have an honest bone in your body.
1
 @ExPwner No, they don't. They controlled markets, not companies. Profits were still private. Ownership was still private, as it was after the war. Nope, not unions.
1
 @ExPwner Wrong and wrong again. Do you even know what a union is?
1
 @ExPwner Nope, you don't know what a union is. I figured as much.
1
@josephsego1095 It's amazing that you literally pointed out the trap to him, and he jumped into it.
1
@josephsego1095 Wow, the total lack of self awareness on this guy. You really got him hook, line and sinker.
1
@josephsego1095 Agreed. We need a system that works for everyone, not just the few.
1
@ExPwner Why would I oppose an egalitarian system?
1
 @ExPwner Sure it does. Own your own labour and get all your rights. What more could you need?
1
 @ExPwner Stop making up bullshit.
1
@willnitschke You're embarrassing yourself.
1
 @willnitschke Aww, did I hurt your feeling?
1
 @ExPwner No need to pass anything off when it's true.
1
@ExPwner Well since you say so we'll just take you at your word.
1
@ExPwner Other than all the cases of it working to privide basic human rights to millions. But sure, I suppose.
1
@ExPwner Oh, I forgot, basic human rights aren't real and nobody deserves the basic necessities to survive. Instead, all food, shelter and healthcare should be locked behind a paywall. Do I sound ancap enough yet?
1
@ExPwner Not idiocy at all. Human rights are not subject to your bank account or fitness for work. You have human rights regardless. Being forced to work for human rights is a violation of human rights.
1
@ExPwner Then how would you provide human rights without them?
1
@willnitschke You tell me Will.
1
 @willnitschke Nope, I mean human rights. You really should learn what they are.
1
 @willnitschke Nope, I mean human rights. You really should learn what they are.
1
 @ExPwner Of course I do. Fun fact, human rights are not people dying of preventable diseases, starving or living on the street.
1
@willnitschke Nope, I mean human rights. You really should learn what they are. As much as I love the 1984 "freedom is slavery" line, you realy need some new material.
1
@ExPwner Here, since you are confused: https://youtu.be/6e8m8L9BFa4 https://youtu.be/la-S53wfG6w https://youtu.be/CmekL6S8Fcc https://youtu.be/BTi5uY2mMlE https://youtu.be/OnYO4k2ShgQ I can keep going. Long story short, you don't seem to understand that you have a positive right to food, water, healthcare and housing.
1
@ExPwner That's just stupid. If people have no positive rights then what stops people from leaving unwanted babies to die by the side of the road?
1
@ExPwner sn't an obligation to the parents against their property rights? You are forcing them to give up property to provide for another. Again, you have yet to explain how you can force a parent to care for a child without infringing on their property rights. Why should a parent not just leave child to die? Positive rights don't exist remember.
1
@willnitschke Quite the contrary, I want the state to give the basic necessities to everyone using my own tax dollars. I know the idea of someone not being a selfish cunt confuses you, but try moving past your own narcissism for once.
1
 @ExPwner So requiring parents to provide for their kids is not an infringement on their rights, even though them providing obviously costs them money and labour?
1
@ExPwner What contract did they sign?
1
@ExPwner Once again, what contract did they sign?
1
@ExPwner Come on James. You whine all day in that other comment calling me a liar, but can't answer a single question. Again, you claimed that parents being required to take care of their kids wellbeing is a contract. So what contract did they sign?
1
@ExPwner So you're comparing parents being forced to provide for their children for nothing in return, with a mutual transaction? Then you switched from something they "contractually agree" to, to now claiming there is no contract. And with a transaction you can choose not to participate, but if you leave your kids in the woods you'll get arrested. How is that the same as a transaction?
1
 @willnitschke So what about people with disabilities, since you mentioned it.
1
 @willnitschke Oh look, the troll dodges the point.
1
 @willnitschke Is that what that was? Weird you're so willing to crap all over people with disabilities. I mean it isn't really, but you get the point.
1
 @willnitschke A mixture of ableism and a complete inability to understand empathy. Yeah, that fits. This is boomer humour 101.
1
@willnitschke This is the whole lack of empathy part. You really don't understand the ability to empathise do you. Of something doesn't directly effect you personally then it may as well not exist right?
1
 @willnitschke I was wrong, you're a psychopath. Makes perfect sense now.
1
@willnitschke Well if you meet that person let me know. You on the other hand are far too obsessed with government deaths and fascism, while completely uncaring of immigrants, the homeless and even racial wealth disparities. Sad really. You may want to revisit that KKK comment though.
1
@willnitschke Got anything to support your claim? Got any idea how costs vary by nation? You are the cause of the suffering as you actively fight against government programs like state pensions and medical care. Keep claiming moral superiority though. We both know what a virtue signal that is right?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
@willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
@willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
 @ExPwner Any day now James.
1
 @ExPwner Hardly an argument now is it James?
1
@willnitschke A failure to address the point and a broad and unfounded claim of "lying" that makes no effort to debunk the points of state funded healthcare, housing and food doing more to end homelessness than other nations. Funny he talks about the Nordic Model, when Finland has virtually eradicated homelessness altogether.
1
@ExPwner None that you can answer that is. The brainwashed propaganda driven mind of the ancap is prone to selective hearing.
1
@ExPwner Did you think of a reason why Finland ended homelessness using government services?
1
 @ExPwner Still waiting on a response as you obviously struggle with Finland ending homelessness in their nation by giving away apartments to the homeless in housing first initiatives.
1
 @ExPwner Yes, you are doing that.
1
@willnitschke So angry. Did you want to address the arguments or just spit bile?
1
@ExPwner Are you seriously denying that many Americans are uninsured and homeless, while housing and healthcare programs in nations like Finland have virtually eradicated both issues? Your denial of reality is getting deeply troubling.
1
@ExPwner Yes, I advise you to do just that.
1
@willnitschke "You mean like the millions of illegal migrants fleeing the sort of Socialist shitholes you champion as economic models" Like where? You keep saying this but have yet to show it, especially as there really aren't any socialist countries, just countries with socialist elements. "A problem Finland doesn't have." Correct, Finland does not have problems with people being uninsurred or homeless. "Oh BTW, the unemployment rate as of when I write this is 6.9% in FInland. And the US unemployment rate is 3.4%. Finland is more than DOUBLE that of the US." "scrambles to move the goal-posts, the goal-posts end up crashing on top of him anyway" Calling yourself out I see. Seriously, what does that have to do with people not having medical insurrance or being homeless?
1
 @willnitschke Again, it's irrelevant. You are grasping at straws because with all their efforts Finland has functionally ended homelessness.
1
@willnitschke I care far more about human rights than economic growth. You on the other hand put productivity over people constantly.
1
 @willnitschke I agree. Not sure who you think you're attacking though.
1
 @willnitschke With you.
1
 @willnitschke It's like looking back more than 1 comment hurts your head. Are you replying via email notifications or something idiotic?
1
@willnitschke If 2 very simple words stump you I don't know what to tell you Will.
1
 @willnitschke Of course they do. Have you tried Rosetta Stone, it may help here. Maybe some Duolingo, brush up on your English.
1
@willnitschke My first comment, followed by yout strawman reply.
1
 @willnitschke ITT
1
@willnitschke "Capitalists use the dictionary definition." Which is obviously a mistake. Why would you use this rather than an academic definition?
1
 @ExPwner Nah. Stop making stuff up.
1
@willnitschke Nah, just the common usage is wrong. Academically the definition is entirely different.
1
@willnitschke Language academics wrote dictionaries, and they write them to match the common usage of words. They are descriptive of language. But your projection and stupidity are always fun to see. Unless you have anything of value to say then I think we can all agree you're worthless.
1
@willnitschke Your ignorance is pathetic. Maybe try actual encyclopaedias next time.
1
 @ExPwner He says, posting popular opinion over academia. Sad.
1
@ExPwner He says, posting opinions over the actual writings of dozens of socialists. Again, market socialism refute your entire argument. Why do you think you both pretend it doesn't exist? Because strawmen is all you have.
1
@willnitschke Your ignorance for what market socialism is doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it means that you are clueless. Again, worker cooperatives, which are commonly owned by the workers, are market socialism. The issue is that you will never admit it as it weakens your entire stance to do so, so you shit your eyes and ears like a zealot and ignore the real world.
1
@willnitschke Nope. I'm defining common ownership of capital as socialism, and common ownership of capital outside of state ownership as market socialism. It would help if you knew what common ownership was.
1
@willnitschke Nope. Not all rectangles are squares Will. Governments without democratic representation do not have common ownership. Therefore, government ownership and common ownership cannot mean the same thing. While common ownership can exist without a government ownership system, it can only do so in a democracy. Common ownership is a type of ownership, independent of both authoritarian government control and private ownership. Common ownership in a non-government setting, such as a worker cooperative, is where common ownership still exists, but not through the state, but instead directly by the workers. I'm sure you won't understand, but we'll get there eventually.
1
 @ExPwner You continue to fail to understand socialism, using an incorrect definition to support your own goals.
1
 @willnitschke I just did. He doesn't understand socialism. This while ignorance act does wear a bit thin Will.
1
 @willnitschke No, it's you.
1
@ExPwner "Actual definition" Your strawman was noted, and rejected. Get fucked.
1
@willnitschke "What was the "strawman"' The definition. "Oh right, you don't know. You're just confused, correct?" Just explained it. Are you projecting again?
1
 @willnitschke Considering you didn't even quote me correctly it's obvious you are confused, correct?
1
 @ExPwner The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 is the US law that makes monopolies illegal. Time to take your L.
1
 @willnitschke The minimum wage you can just look up, it's $16. The other stat is harder to find, but it's also bollocks.
1
@willnitschke So, 2 things. 1. Right, no law decides the minimum wage because they collectively bargain a minimum wage. So what is the collectively bargained minimum wage? 3 seconds of Googling will tell you the collectively bargained minimum wage, it's 110 Krone, or around $16. 2. If you're right and they have no minimum wage at all then the claim in the video of a $26 minimum wage is a lie.
1
 @willnitschke Source? Oh right, you don't have one, but you have faith I suppose. The collectively bargained number is public btw.
1
 @willnitschke So the minimum wage in Denmark isn't $26 an hour, just to confirm?
1
 @willnitschke You mean Brook's $26 an hour claim...Wonderful, so you agree that Brooks is wrong and full of shit. Glad we could clear that up.
1
 @willnitschke No response here Will? Did you run away again?
1
 @willnitschke So long as we can agree that claiming that Denmark has a $26 an hour minimum wage is unsupported by facts then we don't have a problem.
1
 @willnitschke Weird you gave up here Will. I guess arguing against yourself is a real kick up the arse ey?
1
 @willnitschke It's nice to see your bigotry keeps expanding.
1
 @willnitschke You were.
1
 @willnitschke You and I both know what you wanted to imply with your comment.
1
 @willnitschke Already did, you were just expanding your bigot bubble.
1
 @willnitschke See, like that. Bigot.
1
 @willnitschke It's like you can't help but do it. Fascinating.
1
 @willnitschke It's like you're so distant from your own actions that you actually can't help yourself.
1
 @willnitschke I could, but based on the statement itself its obvious you won't understand, as you are incapable of understanding.
1
@willnitschke Wrong. I am perfectly capable of explaining it to any sane person with an IQ over 60.
1
 @willnitschke Yes, although the same can't be said for yourself.
1
@willnitschke Exactly.
1
 @willnitschke I would be confused as well if I were you.
1
@willnitschke Your own claims. I just said that. You're making my point for me.
1
@willnitschke Why would I be upset at your arguing with yourself? It's hilarious.
1
@willnitschke Oh dear, Will is projecting his mental illness again.
1
@willnitschke "and they want to go a job?" Your sentences aren't even making sense any more.
1
 @willnitschke Try writing them in such a way that is coherent.
1
@willnitschke "and they want to go a job" That's very simple, so simple in fact it makes no sense.
1
 @willnitschke The sentence Will. Anyone with a regular command of the English language can see you are not making sense.
1
@willnitschke Your inability to understand a conversation from comment to comment is your own confusion. Here you are again flaking out of a conversation due to fear.
1
 @willnitschke You aren't even in America. What are you on about?
1
 @willnitschke It's certainly different here. You have free healthcare and you personally benefitted from a free education. The US just isn't the same kettle of fish.
1
@willnitschke "When someone claims something is 'free' meaning their taxes didn't pay for it, it typically means that person didn't pay any taxes." You used the term "free" to refer to socialised medicine in another comment. Pick a different strawman, this one is dead.
1
 @willnitschke Except YOU did. Thanks for playing.
1
 @willnitschke You, in a previous comment, referred to socialised medicine as free healthcare. So your virtue signalling can just stop.
1
 @willnitschke Nope, you said it. Almost as of "free at point of use" is a long phrase, so people, yourself included, just say free.
1
 @willnitschke Yes you did.
1
 @willnitschke Nah, you just hate democracy. You've proven this multiple times.
1
 @willnitschke Nope, democracy. You've rallied against it dozens of times.
1
 @willnitschke You're mixing up your definitions, try harder.
1
@willnitschke Oh, you couldn't hope to understand your own ignorance if you tried because you are fundamentally incapable of doing so. So no Will, I'm not confused, you are just ridiculous.
1
 @willnitschke He says, profiting off the labour of others.
1
 @willnitschke So you agree that profiting off the labour of others is bad enough to be considered an insult. Cheers champ.
1
 @willnitschke Why so butthurt?
1
 @willnitschke Still butthurt I see.
1
 @willnitschke More butthurt feelings from you. Get a grip.
1
 @willnitschke Aww, Will is still butthurt. Cry me a river.
1
@ExPwner Oops, wrong account James. Is this why you don't have a job, too busy on 2 accounts?
1
@ExPwner Funny, because you're the unemployed one with a butthurt alt account. You even used the wrong account here. Will was the only one on this thread, then you came in responding to a question that had nothing to do with you. Typical alt account failure.
1
 @willnitschke And James slinks back at being called out and the alt returns. Thanks for the laugh.
1
 @willnitschke Yes yes James, I'm sure you believe that.
1
@willnitschke You're starting to sound like James, swinging in to cover him, and him you, on threads that have nothing to do with you, answering questions that were never presented to you. Looks like you messed up switching accounts.
1
 @willnitschke Stop being so butthurt over being called an exploitative prick. Also, stop being an exploitative prick.
1
@willnitschke Oh dear, more butthurt from Will. Here, let me help you out with your loaded questions: "Why do you always defend slavery" I don't. In fact I openly stated that government ended slavery and stopped capitalists from keeping slaves, which is a good thing. You then came back and defended literal slave owners, for some reason blaming government after they ended slavery. "why do you always defend...war" I don't. I am openly opposed to a number of wars, including the more recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Russian invation of Ukraine. I do however defend the Ukranian people's right to protect their lands from foreign invaders. Some of us aren't pro-war Russian spambots like you Will. You should also look up the Just War Theory. Let's apply it to the Ukranian people's efforts shall we: having just cause - Most theorists hold that initiating acts of aggression is unjust and gives a group a just cause to defend itself. Russia invaded, therefore Ukraine can defend. being a last resort - They were invaded and all current negotiation is asking Ukraine to give up land, and the people within that land, to Russia. This is their last resort to protect the people of Ukraine. being declared by a proper authority - Yes. possessing right intention - Protecting the people of Ukraine. having a reasonable chance of success - They seem to be doing well so far. the end being proportional to the means used - Ukraine has already successfully protected many civilians from the horrors of the Russians. The ends have already justified the means. See. So support for Ukraine is support for a just war. Support for Russia and their attempts to kill Ukrainians and steal their lands is unjustified, as their war is not just.
1
If the US isn't a democracy why do you vote for representative leaders in elections?
1
 @willnitschke Stop being a butthurt loon Will.
1
@ExPwner Oh look, the other zealot.
1
 @willnitschke Nah, he means capitalism. Corporocracies are just end stage capitalism.
1
 @willnitschke So privately owned companies using their massive wealth and influence to bend a nation to their will has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism...despite all the capitalists.
1
@willnitschke Yes they do. The fact that you are this delusional about the state of capitalism is just sad.
1
 @willnitschke Funny, it doesn't work for you.
1
@willnitschke He says... You sound very wounded.
1
@willnitschke Speaking from experience are you Will.
1
 @willnitschke Oh look, nutcase is back to troll again.
1
@willnitschke That's still just you Will.
1
@willnitschke Ask your voices.
1
 @willnitschke More projection I see. Demented old fool.
1
 @willnitschke Swing and a miss there dementia Willy.
1
 @willnitschke Nothing is ever clear to you Will, no matter how obvious. There is a reason for that.
1
 @willnitschke It's like watching a senior citizen try to understand the English language...well actually it's exactly that.
1
 @penguinnh Oh dear, you're going to confuse Will. He can't really comprehend the idea that self employed business owners are workers who own their own labour.
1
@willnitschke But they do own something, they own an equal share of the business they work for. If we take your definition then you would have to argue that nobody ownes cooperative businesses, which is of course complete nonsense as the business exists and therefore it has to be owned.
1
@willnitschke Wrong. You really need to learn how ownership works in a cooperative. By your logic nobody owns worker coops.
1
@willnitschke I just explained how you are wrong 🤣 You are such a clown.
1
@willnitschke You want me to explain it again. Are you a child Will?
1
@willnitschke I already have explained it. Watching you complain while blatantly not understanding what has been said it just sad.
1
@willnitschke If that were the case then yes, but it isn't, so no.
1
@willnitschke I'm not the one who can't comprehend something as simple as how worker cooperatives work Will. You should really try a nice video to educate yourself, because every time this subject is brought up you project ignorance then stomp your feet when people point out what you said makes no sense. According to you, nobody owns worker cooperatives. That's obviously a stupid thing to think, and yet here you are, being a moron.
1
 @willnitschke And other lies you tell yourself. Meanwhile, the US is one of the worst nations on the planet for inequality.
1
 @willnitschke China's income inequality is very similar to the US.
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
@willnitschke So no source again. Typical. Do you think poor people in countries with strong socialised welfare are better or worse off than counties without welfare programs on average? Because I can point to a number of property stricken dictatorships and compare them to western nations, it doesn't really prove a lot.
1
 @willnitschke Putting words in my mouth because you have no sources I see. Come on Will, back up your claims about China for once.
1
 @willnitschke Yes, that is what you just did. Source?
1
@willnitschke Source?
1
 @willnitschke Source?
1
@willnitschke So you still have nothing. Typical Will, unable to back up a single claim. Let me know when you have a solid source for your claims about the Chinese welfare system.
1
 @willnitschke Me thinks he doth protest too much.
1
 @ExPwner Doubt.
1
@ExPwner You could show a single lie, but you haven't, just your own ignorance and cowardice.
1
@ExPwner Nah, you didn't. You displayed your ignorance and cowardice.
1
@ExPwner Yes, you did display your ignorance and cowardice. Thanks.
1
 @ExPwner You keep using those words. Obviously you don't know what they mean.
1
 @ExPwner Displaying your own ignorance doesn't suddenly make it a lie.
1
 @ExPwner Yes, that's my point, so stop doing it.
1
 @ExPwner No you.
1
@ExPwner No you.
1
@ExPwner No you.
1
 @ExPwner No you.
1
 @ExPwner You have screenshots of your own idiocy.
1
 @ExPwner Nah. Keep coping though.
1
 @ExPwner Mimicry won't save you from your own ignorance James.
1
 @ExPwner Really got you in a tizzy didn't I.
1
 @ExPwner Oh James, still upset I see? Quick, call your boyfriend to simp for you.
1
 @ExPwner So upset you have to immediately jump in and lie. So sad.
1
@ExPwner Oh no, the liars are lying again. Seriously, this is pathetic James. Watching you post screenshots where I call you out, or where you try to debunk me with some biased "source" is comedy gold. Can't wait for the next installment of "James is a moron.
1
@ExPwner That Jesus fella sure never healed anyone for free...
1
@ExPwner Being able to support people's basic needs, their human rights, is very much a large part of the underlying philosophy of socialism.
1
 @ExPwner Again, not the definition, the underlying intention. Socialist theorists were literally looking for a better way to create a more humanist society.
1
@willnitschke I love how you absolve yourself from being a shitbag by claiming that your economics has no condition to be Christian lol.
1
 @willnitschke Hopefully you don't claim to be a Christian, that would just be embarrassing for you.
1
@willnitschke And yet here you are.
1
@willnitschke Oh, you got lost again. Try following a conversation for more than 1 comment Will.
1
@ExPwner Patient survival* *if you can afford it. This also ignores people failing to go to the doctor due to expense, resulting in preventable conditions going untreated. It's just worse in every way.
1
@willnitschke Hiring people so you can earn off their backs is exploitation. Amassing wealth from the labour of others is exploitation. Providing human rights to people in society is not exploitation. Learn the difference.
1
 @willnitschke Capitalism is exploitative by definition. Workers are not paid the value of what they produce.
1
@willnitschke If workers were paid more then they were worth then companies would lose money employing them. How dumb are you?
1
@willnitschke No. Of workers are paid more then they produce then a company makes zero profit. The idea that you could pay people what they produce, and then some extra, and still turn a profit is just silly.
1
@ExPwner Wrong. People are paid according to the value of the market of their labour in a capitalist system, not the value of what they produce. Nobody said it was the only input, but it is the only necessary one. Products and services require labour. Labour being paid what they PRODUCE would result in zero profit.
1
@ExPwner It's called exploitation. You're just admitting to it without understanding. The labourer is the only person who creates the product, that which has value.
1
@willnitschke If they make a profit they already exploited the worker. You really don't understand how capitalism works do you.
1
@willnitschke The labourer is the only person who creates the product, that which has value. The capitalist receives some of the value of the product. The labourer receives less value than the value of what he creates, and The capitalist receives some of the value of what the labourer creates. The labourer is exploited by the capitalist. See, simple.
1
 @willnitschke Yeah it is. Profit comes from taking from labourers.
1
 @willnitschke All of that ignores that the labourer is the one CREATING the product. Do you even know what the word labourer means?
1
@ExPwner Production is literally the act of creating products, which is done by the labourer. Everything else you said is irrelevant, I never argued as such.
1
@ExPwner Production: the action of making or manufacturing from components or raw materials So again, nobody argued what you were arguing. Production is the creation process, not the gathering of materials.
1
@ExPwner Yes, you were arguing a strawman. Thank you.
1
@ExPwner "The value of the product is not the value of labor." Irrelevant. Again, the labourer is the only person who creates the product, that which has value. Nowhere is the value of the labour mentioned.
1
@ExPwner Lol, the labourer literally makes the product. That's their job. Nobody else made that product.
1
@ExPwner So who makes the product?
1
@ExPwner How?
1
@willnitschke Because you are wrong. The production process is not done by raw materials, they cannot produce anything, they are used to produce things. The labourer PRODUCES that which has value. This also ignores that depending on the product, things like machinery and materials aren't even necessary, however labour is ALWAYS necessary, meaning the factor that is required, and the only thing producing anything, is the labourer. Labourers produce that which have value.
1
@willnitschke That doesn't make sense. You still need things like materials and tools, but those things do not produce anything, they facilitate the labourer, who produces things. Maybe you just don't understand what production actually is.
1
@willnitschke Again, it depends on the product. And again, none of those things produce anything. If they did you would not need a labourer. So thanks, you can apologise though if you want.
1
@willnitschke Yeah it does. Thanks for trying though. At this point you seem to think raw materials manufacture themselves into products, rendering labourers obsolete.
1
@willnitschke Creation requires a creator. Whining about inputs doesn't get something created. You continue to not know what the word "production" means. Specific professions however require no inputs. Take consultants for example. You don't need to give them materials, they simply produce a product all by themselves. Service products tend to be possible without inputs at all, they simply need a worker to create a product.
1
@willnitschke Again, I said it depends on the product. Again, labourers are the ones producing. Inputs are jus inputs, they are not labour. Let me know when you learn to read as well, because this is just sad.
1
@ExPwner I'm sorry you don't understand the argument being made. Must hurt for you to think.
1
@ExPwner You have yet to show how to produce anything without a labourer, so you do sound very silly, yes.
1
 @ExPwner Production is literally done by labourers. Not sure what else there is to say James. How do you not understand this?
1
 @ExPwner You are wrong. Addressed. Again, production is done by the labourer.
1
 @ExPwner You failed to address it. Your arguments against it didn't actually match with the points.
1
@willnitschke Again, you are confused about the word "production". The production process IS the labour, not the raw materials. Materials do not produce anything, they are manipulated to produce things. Therefore, materials produce nothing, therefore it is factually correct to say that labourers are the sole producers.
1
 @willnitschke Yes. Labour is the only thing that produces anything. Raw materials don't produce things. So the only production will be done by labour.
1
 @ExPwner Yes it is, by definition. Go look up what production actually means.
1
@willnitschke "Labor by itself cannot produce anything" Incorrect. Labour can produce a whole host of services. This is also irrelevant, as using materials is not the same as those materials producing anything. Labour produces. "They are essential for production." But they don't produce anything. Again, production is done by labourers. The person making the product, the thing that has value, is the labourer. "The meaning of the word production has zero to do" Wait wait wait. You think the word production has nothing to do with a logical argument where the first line is pointing out that labourers produce things....are you genuinely slow in the head?
1
@willnitschke "Except it can't which is why you couldn't name any." Consulting. "I can go to a airline bookings service and purchase flights. This is all handled by computers, so I've received a service with zero labour input." A service designed by who? All you are doing is proving that the business exploited the labourer who created that system. "Notice however, the materials and capital (electricity, computers, etc.) were still essential." You mean products, which were also produced by labourers?
1
@willnitschke "I do consulting, been doing it for nearly 40 years. Sorry, I need office space, electricity, transport, advertising, telephones, computers" Except you don't actually need any of that to consult. You think consultants before any of that were out of the job? "So you're admitting you don't even need labour to create a service?" Except you do, as explained. "And those programmers who were paid $250,000 salaries were 'exploited' were they?" Was their labour used to produce something that has a higher value than what they recieved? "Electricity created by a solar panel doesn't need labour" Other than the panel, the install, the maintainence, the constant live work done by staff to keep the grid going. "The solar panel was likely created in an automated factory, that didn't need labour either." Lol, okay champ, not even close, and even if it was you are just describing people's labour that created said factory being exploited. It's all just labour exploitation, no matter how many layers removed you try to get. "At least you're finally admitting you can have goods and services and labour is not essential, although obviously capital still is." Literally the opposite. Again, consultants can consult without any capital.
1
 @ExPwner No they don't. While they can help, a consultant can literally he standing next to someone and just advising them. Labour is the only thing that produces anything.
1
@ExPwner Yes, it's all labour. Again, learn what production means. Materials and equipment are used TO produce things, they don't produce anything. In the same way that shoes are used by runners, but we don't pin the medal on a pair of Nikes. Again, consultants have no requirement to use those things. Do you think consultants 200 years ago used phones? Lol.
1
 @ExPwner Labour literally produces things, by definition. Yes, consultants existed 200 years ago. Or are you now arguing global trade wasn't a thing?
1
 @ExPwner Nope, labour produces things. Insulting me doesn't change facts.
1
 @ExPwner Nope, labour produces things.
1
 @ExPwner Yes it does. Labour is the only things that produces, by definition.
1
@willnitschke It's not an input, it is the action. Production is done BY labourers. Production is done USING tools and materials. Tools and materials do not produce, tools and materials simply exist to be used. Labourers produce. And again, many services can be performed without any inputs at all, just labour. Your strawman is just your lack of understanding of the argument.
1
@willnitschke Of course it did. You produced a hole. He produced a filled in hole. Just because you both produced something that cancels out the other doesn't mean you produced nothing. You also just pointed to a scenario where you could indeed have a product with only labour. So thanks.
1
@ExPwner Yeah it is.
1
@ExPwner It applies to both.
1
@willnitschke Because it's already been said. I'm not the one trying to claim that digging holes isn't a job, that was you.
1
 @willnitschke Who said nobody wanted or needed them? Why are you paying someone to dig a hole you don't want or need? Are you confused Will? Do you need a lie down?
1
In what way are social safety nets owned by the government and distributed to those in need a form of private ownership?
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Imagine replying a year later just to be wrong.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 Also true. Thank you for destroying your own point.
1
@soulcapitalist6204 You mean your claim that tax funded welfare came from capitalism and didn't exist hundreds of years before under feudalism? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@ExPwner That's not an arguement. Maybe try having a point of view rather than just deplatforming like you always do. I love that you think people getting sick of your grift is "running away". Really amplifies the abject narcissism within your every comment and action.
1
@ExPwner So in your ideal capitalist society, if you don't have a job how do you eat?
1
@ExPwner False. How are you this ignorant?
1
Well of course Brooks does. What would the capitalist argument be without a strawman.
1
 @willnitschke I mean that market socialism has nothing to do with statism. You know the difference correct?
1
 @willnitschke You are deeply confused it would seem. If your strawman is so great that you think market socialism doesn't exist, then according to you Richard Wolff isn't a socialist.
1
@willnitschke Worker cooperatives are not government. You've been told this a dozen times before.
1
@willnitschke If every business is a worker cooperative or owner operated then every means of production is owned by the workers of that business. To many this is one way that the community as a whole can own the means of production.
1
@willnitschke Government existing is not the same as government owning.
1
 @willnitschke Wonderful, so we agree your argument is stupid. Thanks.
1
 @willnitschke Ah, the classic perversity thesis of conservative non-thinkers.
1
@ExPwner Watching you upvote yourself is so sad. Keep crying James, your words mean nothing.
1
@ExPwner God, the tears streaming down your face must sting for you to write something so salty.
1
@ExPwner Cope.
1
@ExPwner I don't need to run away from your sources, you just need to understand that all sources are open to critique. You however ran away from a solid correlation between net Gini coefficient and economic freedoms, claiming that the sources they used somehow change how statistics work.
1
@ExPwner "You literally tried to assert that a statement of “more data is needed” (which appears routinely in peer reviewed papers everywhere) was an admission of their data being shit." Actually I pointed out that they openly claimed that their data was lacking, and pointed out that it failed to specify for either location, specific industry, or job titles. Instead it used very broad strokes for all 3. But thanks for showing you don't understand the point being made. "Nope I did not. I pointed out how the authors were biased by quoting a known hack and liar." Irrelevant. Prove their bias effected their data. Statistics does not bend to your bullshit. "Nope I did not. I pointed out how the authors were biased by quoting a known hack and liar." Irrelevant. Again, their data analysis speaks for itself. "Then I showed how their sample size of only 21 OECD countries does not in any way prove your claim" Comparing countries that are otherwise very similar is actually a great way to get a solid control. So thanks for showing you have no idea what you're on about.
1
@ExPwner "No they did not. That is a lie." You already admitted they did. You also just ignored the points about overgeneralisations. "I already did. They cherry picked out only 21 countries to get the result that they wanted." Again, they used similar countries to get a good control. They didn't cherry-pick specific nations from different lists. They chose all OECD nations, which is actually very common. "That is not how you go about trying to prove that economic freedom negatively impacts the Gini coefficient." Yes it is. What's also funny is if you are correct and there is no correlation then picking 21 countries should make no difference. Meanwhile the correlation was 0.99. Not 0.2, not 0.4, but 0.99. That's about as storng as it gets without just drawing a fucking line.
1
@ExPwner First of all, there are 37, second of all, as explained in the study, they used Western OECD nations, again to create a solid control. And no, I was not saying they used every single OECD nation, I was saying all the ones used were OECD, which is very common.
1
@ExPwner " it is not a “solid control” when you are talking about economic freedom and inequality." Sure it is. You take countries with very similar ideals and map them. Outlyers with dramatic differences are not used, meaning other possible factors don't ruin results. That's the whole point of a control. You can't see the actual trend when blurring the data with other crap, like dictatorships and thoecracies.
1
@ExPwner The problem is that dictatorships don't necessarily affect economic freedom. So again, comparing nations with very similar ideologies, cultures political atmospheres and economies gives a far clearer picture overall.
1
 @ExPwner It didn't cherry-pick. It used western OECD nations. That's not something crazy measure. Glad you agree it proved me right though.
1
 @ExPwner Of course you do. How else are you supposed to control for various factors?
1
 @ExPwner Yes, you do. All experiments try to remove variables. It creates a atronger argument, not a weaker one.
1
@ExPwner Bullshit. A lack of democracy is a significant variable.
1
@ExPwner Of course it does. People decoding to limit businesses for the benefits of others is very different to government limiting business so it can impose its will. The reasons are different, making non-democratic nations a variable to be removed. Or are you really trying to argue that capitalism makes things more equal, but only in dictatorships?
1
@ExPwner Yes it does. Democracy is far more complicated than that, and has a lot to do with government limitations and rule of the people.
1
 @willnitschke Projecting now, while still ignoring the arguments made. Sad.
1
 @ExPwner Stop trying to gaslight James, you're bad at it.
1
@willnitschke Try reading.
1
 @willnitschke Well start with these comments, and of that's too hard we could try you on some board books.
1
 @willnitschke We can start you on Colin the Caterpillar. Might be more your speed.
1
@willnitschke Oh, that peaked your interest. Typical dementia patient.
1
@willnitschke "Sorry I don't watch cartoons anymore, hence why I was confused by the reference." You're always confused Will, it's your natural state.
1
 @willnitschke Sounds like you should. Maybe try the Telly Tubbies. Probably more your speed.
1
 @willnitschke Sure, when I was 4, which is why I think you'll like it. These days I strive for shows, cartoons notwithstanding, with a little more story.
1
@willnitschke Looking for recommendations? Sure. Gotta go with Fry from Futurama. Absolute great lines from him. Nathan Explosion has to be up there. Rick is also a solidly complex. Obviously never idolise these people, but solid characters. That being said, are we talking all animation, or just western cartoons?
1
@willnitschke Oh I see, you're a psychopath so you learn emotions from watching other people. That actually makes sense that you would ask such a stupid question. No Will, they're called entertainment. People watch them for fun. You know, emotions.
1
 @willnitschke Not angry at all, just diagnosing you.
1
 @willnitschke You think everything is an insult because you're so defensive and angry.
1
@willnitschke I called you a psychopath because you act like one. That's not being defensive or angry, that's pointing out you have the emotional intelligence of a stump. But admitting the problem is the first step Will.
1
 @willnitschke It's the distinct lack of empathy for other human beings Will. It describes you perfectly.
1
 @willnitschke Gaslighting won't make you look any more empathetic.
1
@willnitschke It's like you don't even hear yourself.
1
 @willnitschke More gaslighting it is then. Let me know when you lights start to dim.
1
@willnitschke It's like you took a class on gaslighting 101 and never made it past the first lesson.
1
 @willnitschke Yes, like that.
1
1. Capitalist systems heavily favour non-democratic leadership, and capitalists will often go to great lengths to stop workers even having a say through a union, nevermind as part owner. Most workers therefore don't join these simply because there are so few. As for having less choice, the same could be said about the end of slavery. We removed business owner's right to hold slaves and therefore removed some of their choices. Sometimes choices, such as ones that involve the option to exploit others, is not a good thing. 2. I think you are rather dramatically underplaying the sheer vastness of inequality. Nobody has ever worked hard enough to earn a billion dollars, ever, in the entirety of all of human history. The only way to achieve this level of wealth is to use the labour of others. But hey, thanks for admitting that when life gives you a clear disadvantage that you cannot control, capitalism will make sure to kick you down your entire life.
1
It's especially stupid when you understand that most businesses are started by people who already have money. Low-income people, especially people with no skills, just don't stand a chance in a pure capitalist world.
1
@willnitschke Owner-operated businesses are workers who own their own means of production, and are not exploiting the labour of others. They fit the definition of socialism just as much as they do capitalism.
1
 @ExPwner Wrong how? Use your words troll.
1
@willnitschke Nope, most businesses are started by people middle or upper class. "In fact, 72% of surveyed entrepreneurs come from middle-class families" Socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. If a business only has 1 employee, and that employee is the owner, then it fit the criteria. It gives people ownership of their own labour, and doesn't exploit other's labour. That's the whole point of socialism.
1
@willnitschke That is one version, but not all versions. People owning their own labour directly is another version. Market socialism.
1
@ExPwner Wrong. I've already shown you are incorrect. GA Cohen already laid it out.
1
@willnitschke Sounds like you didn't read anything he wrote. Try again.
1
 @willnitschke Nope. Try again.
1
 @willnitschke I explained it, which is a lot more than you managed. Keep taking things out of context though, it's your specialty.
1
 @willnitschke No, I explained it, you just didn't understand it. Here, let me give an example. Will, can you explain what taxes are?
1
@willnitschke Totally illogical as always Will. I'd tell you to go and read it again, but your tiny brain really can't handle it.
1
@willnitschke The comment where I previously explained it. See, easy. Your turn.
1
@ExPwner Projection from James. Always fun to see.
1
 @willnitschke I refer back to my explanation. Maybe you just don't understand English too well.
1
@willnitschke Oh dear Will, you don't understand English very well, do you. Go back and read through the comments to reread my explanation is not the same as not having written one. It just means you have to have the semblance of a brain to understand that you are being told to go back and read the comments. Maybe you're drunk again, that would explain a lot.
1
 @willnitschke You sound more confused than ever.
1
@willnitschke Everything it would seem. You've lost the plot entirely and spiralled into this bizarre place where you have no idea what we were discussing.
1
 @ExPwner Lol, no it didn't.
1
@ExPwner Like? I'll wait.
1
@ExPwner Brehons didn't even enforce a criminal code you idiot, they were civil judges. Try actually reading before spouting off on things you don’t know. Criminal law was enforced by clans and their chiefs, which is a government my dude.
1
 @willnitschke The nation with the most private healthcare is also the most expensive.
1
@willnitschke xcept, as has been explained to you a dozen times over, that government healthcare spending is on insurance, not on doctors or hospitals. The private system, as you pointed out, is far too expensive. If they created government hospitals like most other nations the expense would be less.
1
@ExPwner The NHS costs less than US healthcare, by a lot. It is also increasing by less than the cost of US care. The NHS increased costs 4.4% year over year since 1998, the US healthcare expenditure increased just over 4.6% per year since 2000. So nope. Not only is US care substantially more expensive, it is staying more expensive.
1
@willnitschke Most government healthcare is both insurance and care, rendering the two almost indistinguishable. US healthcare however is only insurance. They do not have government hospitals. There are no Medicare or Medicaid hospitals. And no, I mean cheaper per capita. The ability for government to collectively bargain really drives down costs. What's nice about this is private care still exists, meaning public healthcare is competing with private industry. Since the necessity of healthcare has been removed, private healthcare in the UK offers luxury services and shorter wait times at almost no cost. Take, for example, a hip replacement. In the US the cost averages around the $30K to $40K range. Costs can vary wildly depending on how much the specific hospital you are in charges per day for a bed for example. The costs add up fast. Private hospitals in the UK however charge around half that, and have longer hospitals stays for better care afterwards. And of course, the NHS is free for everyone who can't afford all that. The numbers speak for themselves.
1
@ExPwner But the issue isn't efficiency, it's straight up profits. Also, how can you be less efficient when you don't even need to charge people. Not even accounting for the wild inefficient load added by the health insurance market, something the UK doesn't need for the NHS to run.
1
@ExPwner Thanks for proving that your are lying when you call government healthcare more expensive.
1
@ExPwner Government healthcare system aren't just more efficient because they don't need to argue prices with hospitals, they also have more bargaining power as they represent more people. That's one of the main reasons government provided healthcare is so much cheaper. And yes, the NHS is underfunded. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about.
1
@ExPwner Then why is the US system both more expensive and worse overall?
1
@ExPwner You mean in the 40s? Got any reference to that?
1
@ExPwner To what, your empty claim?
1
@willnitschke James claimed that US healthcare was more expensive than UK healthcare before the NHS. Considering the UK was at war at the time I have my doubts about his claim. He would have to go all the way back to the 1930s to substantite this claim, which he has not done at all. And even still, the two nations have become a lot more similar in the last 80 to 90 or so years, so hardly an apt point. So yes, an empty claim. You're looking tired boomer.
1
@ExPwner You claimed that US healthcare was more expensive than the UK before government entered the picture. You then made zero effort to support that claim. Sounds like the only one throwing out red herrings is you.
1
@ExPwner You CLAIMED such comparisons are useless. You CLAIMED healthcare is more expensive due to government. You have backed up neither.
1
@ExPwner Gonna need some sources champ. Ones that account for newer technologies and aging populations.
1
@ExPwner Well I'll just take your word for it. Mind reviewing WHY it doesn't make sense?
1
@willnitschke God no, we'll be here all year waiting for you to make sense. According to you: socialism = capitalism Workers owning things isn't really owning things, despite having all the same benefits. Again, socialism = capitalism. You hate lawyers for some reason. What's funny is your claim about a boss owning everything being capitalism is not just accurate, it's exactly what you denied in another commenter thread. So why not just piss off and get fucked on this one, save us both some time.
1
@willnitschke No, my definition is socially owned means of production. Anything non-democratic would therefore not count. But according to your definition all government is socialism, which means you agree that social welfare is socialism.
1
@willnitschke Welfare is production. There is a product. Health insurance, healthcare, disability insurance, housing, food, these are all products. The fact that they are paid through taxes doesn't change that. Socialism is when the means of production are owned in common. Hope that clears it up, as you seem very confused.
1
@willnitschke Not even close Will. It would be more like the government paying you to procude biscuits, which you then give out for free to people who meet specific conditions. You are producing biscuits, but the people eating them are not paying at the point they get them, they pay in taxes. No, it means owned by people collectively.
1
@willnitschke It does sound dumb, becasue that's not what I said at all. At this point I think the prospect of you learning is a lost cause.
1
@willnitschke I did explain it. You are still confused. Here, I'll show you the difference in our explanations. You "No if I eat biscuits I own a biscuit factory. Consumption is not production." Me "No. But if you own a biscuit factory that gives out biscuits to the poor that are paid for by taxes, then you are producing biscuits" You "So if I eat biscuits I now own a biscuit factory" You see the disconnect? Where did I say people own the factory?
1
@willnitschke Yes, to consume there must be something produced, by definition. Consumption is just production from the customer perspective. You are trying to reword it to get around it being socialised.
1
@willnitschke Nah, it's production. Otherwise the customer would have nothing to consume.
1
 @willnitschke Says the worker exploiter.
1
 @willnitschke The labourer.
1
 @willnitschke It was 2 words and answered your question. You now have no response. Sounds pretty dumb to me.
1
 @ExPwner Yeah it is lol.
1
@willnitschke My comment. See how easy that was. 2 words again. It's really not that hard.
1
@willnitschke Considering you don't understand even 2 words that directly answer your questions, I think it's pretty clear you are lacking between the ears.
1
 @willnitschke No, just an answer to a question. 2 words stumped you.
1
@willnitschke See what I mean. Tell me Will, we're you born this way or dropped as an infant?
1
@willnitschke Definitely the latter then. Tell me Will, is this feigned ignorance act ever useful. It just seems to make you look stupid. I mean I suppose it makes sense as your tiny brain starts to shutdown when conversations fall away from your script, but this is just sad. I mean, I literally commented 2 words, and you'd think I posted the entirety of War and Peace by the way you folded like cheap suit. Honestly Will, get you act together.
1
 @willnitschke Describing James again I see. Did you stop beating your wife?
1
@ExPwner Oh look, James came to defending his alt.
1
@ExPwner You'd know how silly that sounds if you had any level of self awareness.
1
@ExPwner Like seriously, do you really not hear it at all?
1
@ExPwner Considering your entire "refutation" to the explanation of labour exploitation is to refer to irrelevant works, and when that failed just broadly proclaim that it's not true, even going so far as to claim it's impossible for labour to be exploited at all, all while ignoring everything from power imbalances in wage negotiations, wage slavery that requires people to work just to afford their human rights, and even ignoring historical capitalist slavery. Your entire ideology is just one big ignorance of reality.
1
 @willnitschke I agree, James's job is to make a fool of himself. As for the rest, your ignorance of logical arguments isn't a strong suit. You're just arguing from ignorance.
1
 @willnitschke Getting defensive I see, must be all the butthurt at being an ignorant troll.
1
 @ExPwner Which was? Oh right, non-existent.
1
@ExPwner "he cannot and will not deal with the Bohm Bawerk refutation" Already have. It does not effect GA Cohen's arguemnt in any way. Continuing to mindlessly use an argument that is invalid is just stupid. "Hence why his only response is to proclaim it already dealt with or irrelevant when it is neither." Both actually. Claiming it is neither without showing it is also stupid. GA Cohen's plain argument does not assume that labour has value, therefore the refutation does not work.
1
@willnitschke "He doesn't know who the socialist "intellectuals" he cites are, either." Obviously Marx and Engels who you constantly consider the be all and end all of socialism. Then there are the likes of: Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin Fabians like George Bernard Shaw Syndicalists like Fernand Pelloutier The list goes on. Needless to say, your ignorance on the topic is your own. "He just tosses a few vague words around. He can't defend their ideas but he doesn't know what they are. If he wasn't clueless he'd drill down into the arguments. They're all beyond him." Watching you project is fun though 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
1
@willnitschke So no response? Obviously now you can't keep claiming your defunct definition of socialism, one that lines up with exactly zero socialist writers.
1
@willnitschke "What would you like me to respond to? Your copy/paste list of pseudo-intellectual socialist nitwits?" Sure, if that's what you want to call them. "What insights are you after?" Why you can't understand what socialism is. I think after reading some literature you will have a deeper understanding, or will just block your ears and cry like always.
1
 @willnitschke I gave you a reading list. Start there sunshine.
1
 @ExPwner Yeah it did. Cohen does not assume labour has value, therefore your point is invalid.
1
 @ExPwner Oh course it's relevant. It renders your entire refutation worthless.
1
 @ExPwner Dealt with it already. Maybe if you tried actually reading the points made rather than scrolling over them and assuming you are already correct. I've already shown how you are wrong.
1
@ExPwner But it does deal with it. Bawerk specifically attacked the idea that labour has value. GA Cohen did not assume that, therefore making Bawerk's refutation not relevant to GA Cohen's argument. It's really really simple stuff. Bawerk does not cover Cohen's argument, plain and simple.
1
 @ExPwner Then present your point, considering you have yet to show how it applies.
1
 @ExPwner And it's irrelevant. Thanks for wasting my time with your nonsense. Maybe try reading GA Cohen again.
1
 @ExPwner Nah, it's irrelevant.
1
 @ExPwner Oh dear, James can't explain his own position. Bye bye James, run and cry.
1
 @willnitschke I've already posted to you what Cohen wrote. You continuously show you don't understand it by moving to lie about semantics. Pretty sad really as it's obviously all you have.
1
 @ExPwner Says the paid shill posting a script. You have yet to present anything James, just more mad ravings.
1
 @willnitschke I've explained it before. Of course, you've obviously read it, so why are you relying on me?
1
 @willnitschke Already did. You failed to comprehend it at all.
1
@ExPwner Because it's irrelevant. You have yet to address Cohen at all othe than to obviously misunderstand it.
1
@ExPwner "it is not irrelevant because it proves that workers are not having anything taken from them" Wrong. Thanks for trying again, but this is getting sad.
1
@willnitschke Nah, h just used the old arguments again, which don't work as they don't address anything Cohen wrote. You also know I read it as I posted the argument. Sounds like you are projecting.
1
@ExPwner Nope, keep lying and failing though.
1
@willnitschke Oof, lying Willy is getting very upset.
1
@willnitschke Projection now Will, how cute.
1
@ExPwner Lol, just watched your video, how dumb are you? Your entire position is being an ancap, IE trying to make government responsible for as little as possible. That is your whole viewpoint in a nutshell. How is pointing out that you want to determine what government is responsible for inaccurate? You hate the idea of people being given the opportunity to decide what a government should control, and try to force your will of a tiny government onto everyone. You make yourself look dumber and dumber.
1
@ExPwner Here, let me simplify for you. How do you think government should function? What should they be in charge of?
1
@ExPwner It's not a change in subject, your personal beliefs about how government should work is literally the subject. So again, what should government be in charge of in your ancap world?
1
 @ExPwner So you can't stay on topic and chose to deflect again.
1
 @ExPwner So much cope and projection. Try again James.
1
 @ExPwner Sure it is James. You believe that.
1
@ExPwner Oh dear, looks like I'm living rent-free in your head now. Let me know when you have a source that actually agrees with you.
1
So the privatising, union busting, anti-democracy Nazi party was definitely not a bunch of fascists, and was totally socialism. Makes perfect sense. Tell me Frey, where was the common ownership of the means of production?
1
@willnitschke "that his use of the word "insurance" doesn't mean what he claimed it means" Yeah, it does. Insurance is practice or arrangement by which a company or government agency provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment of a premium. "He then started to use the phrase "national insurance" which does have a different meaning." It's an umbrella term that describes multiple state insurance systems. "So I pointed out, therefore, "socialism" and "national socialism" mean exactly the same thing." Which they don't. Applying this logic to the name of a political party is already shaky, but going so far as to not understand the inherent differences between common ownership between the means of production, and a political party that literally killed the socialists in their ranks so they could be fascists, is just sad. If this is the level of logic you apply on a daily basis, then no wonder you're so deluded.
1
@willnitschke "All Socialist regimes are anti-democratic in the sense that the democratic process becomes non-functional' They are not socialist any more then. "And members of the party acquiring/stealing public and private property is always what Socialists do." Also not socialism. You really should look into what socialism is. "Yeah I didn't read all your asinine drivel" Disregarded. Thanks for saving me the time.
1
@ExPwner Did you forget to write you lie and just wrote the word lie instead?
1
@ExPwner I already addressed all of the necessary sources from TIKs video. The main points being that: 1. Socialism as he defines it does not match the definitions he uses. They directly contradict him on screen. 2. He openly disregards multiple sources, including the characterisation of the Nazi economy as the literal origin of the term privatisation. 3. He tries to claim unions were strengthened, when in reality they were completely destroyed, with no ability to negotiate pay, vote in leadership, strike, or do anything else union can do. 4. He claimed Nazi Germany was a democracy....I mean, nobody in their right mind believes that. They banned political opposition. TIK is just wrong when it comes to his way of interpreting the sources, and the people who wrote those sources openly state how it should be interpreted. So stop posting the obvious lies of some lolbitarian.
1
@ExPwner So they could vote in leadership, negotiate pay and strike?
1
 @willnitschke Nothing socialist about vanguardism.
1
 @willnitschke Ignoring the point isn't an argument Will. Try harder next time.
1
@willnitschke It was pretty self explanatory. Is this you doing the while get scared and run away routine. Let me guess, your next comment will also fail to address the argument, and will probably claim the argument doesn't exist.
1
@ExPwner Yes, off you run. Tell me James, did you figure out what a unions is yet? I'll wait.
1
 @ExPwner Yes they were. Stop lying James.
1
 @ExPwner Yes they were. We've been over this James, they could not perform a single function necessary of a union. They were unions in name only.
1
@ExPwner Unions not doing literally anything unions do is indeed destroying them. Unions are there to represent the workers. These fake unions were just a glorified payroll, and they did nothing for workers whatsoever.
1
@willnitschke They had zero functions of a union. They were not unions.
1
@ExPwner "they were unions" No, they were not. Rule 1, James is wrong again. "insist he is correct after being proven wrong with facts and endlessly repeat his debunked claims over and over again ." Rule 2, James projects.
1
 @ExPwner Aww, James broke his brain and can't form new arguments. Keep repeating the stupid James, it's still wrong. Rule 1 😂😂😂
1
 @freyfaust6218 You should probably read the Communist Manifesto and surrounding writings. They don't match your claims one bit.
1
@freyfaust6218 Obviously they taught you poorly. For example, Friedrich Engels wrote that the absolute first thing any revolution would do is create a constitutional democracy. Considering not a single self-proclaimed communist country did that, it's pretty safe to say that they fell at the starting line of actual Marxism.
1
@freyfaust6218 "When your theory disagrees with experiment, it's wrong." You can't exactly call it Marxism if what they implemented wasn't Marxism. "Marxism is a baseless projection constructed on presumptions about people and a cynical view of history. It appeals to envy and social chaos, creating the perfect conditions for authoritarianism." Or you just implement it properly through constitutions, limitations and social reform.
1
@ExPwner I know reality is hard for you.
1
@willnitschke "If you have a Socialist regime ("the democratic embodiment of the will of the workers")" Keyword, democratic. "how can you have a second separate group, "the unions" that also claim to be "the democratic embodiment of the workers"" Because government represents all voting people, not just workers. "Worse, if the two groups have disagreements, which is inevitable, this is now untenable under Socialism. One group (union representation) must be rolled into the other group (political representation)." Or they just come to an agreement, you know, like all politics. "Because none of those failures were "Real Socialism"." Well they weren't. It's not rocket science Will. Removing democracy isn't socialism, by definition. It especially isn't Marxism, as per Mrx and Engels. It's at this point you'll tell me to ignore the literal inventors of Marxism and to instead just accept whatever bullshit you decide to spew.
1
@freyfaust6218 Nah. Just do it like they wrote.
1
@ExPwner You're a walking "socialism is when the government does stuff" meme, so not sure what you want from me.
1
 @ExPwner Nah, it ain't. Maybe this strawman will pan out for you some day.
1
@ExPwner Yeah it is, again proven by market socialisms existence.
1
 @ExPwner Yeah it does. According to your definition market socialiam isn't socialism, but obviously that's stupid.
1
@freyfaust6218 "Marx could not forsee, that the elite ruling class would organize their own revolution against the working classes" That's just capitalism. You are describing capitalism. "Gender mainstreaming, climate mandates controlling every aspect of life, digital prisons relative to forced addiction to vaccines" Jesus dude, this is some medication level shit. "confiscation of real estate" Anything related to a crime has always been taken when they get caught. "the controlled demolition of the economy" You mean market speculation like in '07? Oh no, you mean the controlling of a lethal virus to stop hospitals being overrun and to stop people dying en masse. Tell me, what would be the economic fallout of millions of pensioners dying? "most leftists endorse this autocratic crap led by their oppressors." Health reforms are not autocratic, they are specifically to stop people dying. "Kautsky and his contemporaries said that Marx's prognosis needed revision. Violent revolution was not necessary for society to evolve towards communism." And Marx agreed that violent revolution was not necessary, but in nations that still had serfdom and royalty, what choice did they have? "You imply that constitutional government is a sign that Marx was correct, that these societies are moving towards communism." Socialism actually. "Democracies are problematic because of a propensity to mob rule. The majority is almost always wrong, hence republics." How very...authoritarian of you. "We cannot trust the people the make Decisions". Also quite funny as republics usually function as democracies, so not really sure what point you are trying to make. "Socialism: from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Ability and Need to be determined by an aparachnik, of course." Or we could just use the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Seems much simpler. "Public ownership is just another term for state controlled." I agree, which is why socialists advocate for common ownership, not state ownership. "If the people owned the means of production, it would look like a free market." You're confusing private ownership with common ownership. "Ownership translates as decision-making authority. Publicly owned industries and real estate are off limits for civilian initiative and curation." If you did want to go the state angle with common ownership then you would need to give the people reasonable control over the government. They would have to have a strong say in who is in charge, IE democracy. "People who work in public institutions offer shoddy service and are slow to innovate." Like NASA right? "There is no need for market discipline because there is no danger of losing the job. The best are so-called public servants and unelected administrators." You get they can still lose their jobs right? They still have to meet criteria and do a good job. "They can craft the protocol in their own interests and never have to get a vote." And the people who have a vote can ignore it, or rewrite it, or fire them and get someone else to write it. Amazing right? Also funny you talk about not getting a vote. That's the main issue with capitalism, no vote from the workers. "The problem with all ideologically obsessed revolutionaries is that they imagine that there are better humans, that we just need to get the right ones in power to make heaven on earth." Actually the opposite. Marx for example was an egalitarian who believed that we needed to give society the power, not any individual. "Corruption is inevitable, hence the notion of decentralization. What does decentralized power look like? Privately owned family farms and businesses, of course, hard evidence of owning the means of production." Because private industry has never been corrupt. Never poisoned wells, never agreed on price controls, never monopolised. Private industry is of course incapable of any wrong doing...aside from all the wrong they did.
1
 @ExPwner Thank god. Could you imagine.
1
@willnitschke "You have a great imagination, champ. Just no understanding of anything in the real world." We've seen what unregulated markets can do time and time again. Sitting there and going "well if only they had LESS regulation" isn't going to suddenly stop the market from crashing.
1
@willnitschke You mean like the unregulated market speculation of the 30s? How about the unregulated rating agencies of the crash? Ring any bells? Any time the market is given leeway it eats itself.
1
 @willnitschke speculation. Did you not see that?
1
 @willnitschke Stock markets.
1
@willnitschke So you don't see an issue with a market that allowed people to buy stocks with a 10% deposit?
1
@willnitschke Actually gambling IS illegal in many places, my state notwithstanding. It was not thoutful risk taking, it was ill-advised, increadibly high-risk stocks that people dumped their life savings into. We can both see the obvious potential for that to explode.
1
@willnitschke Glad you're finally admitting that the stockmarket crash in 1929 was nothing to do with government or regulation. In fact you are now saying the exact processes that could have stopped such a crash would be dictatorial. So thanks Will. Always nice to be proven right.
1
 @willnitschke Oh god, you're getting worse. Seriously, seek help. We were talking about this for the last dozen comments.
1
@willnitschke Always nice when you go off on one because you admitted I'm right. Bye Will, enjoy your time away. I'm sure you'll be back to gaslight soon.
1
@ExPwner You make zero sense.
1
@willnitschke Hey look, the gaslighting. It's like you read my comment and just decided to do what it said. Sad.
1
@willnitschke See, like that. Stop being pathetic Will. I've seen better attempts to gaslight from children.
1
 @ExPwner Gaslighting I see James.
1
@willnitschke Yes, that's gaslighting 101.
1
@willnitschke 🥱
1
@ExPwner Stop gaslighting James.
1
@willnitschke 🥱
1
 @willnitschke Your failure attempts to gaslight make me bored. Get a new line.
1
@ExPwner I agree, people should stop gaslighting me. A little hypocritical of you, but ce la vie.
1
@willnitschke Again, you can't help yourself. Is this why you beat your wife?
1
 @willnitschke Seriously though Will, when did you stop beating your wife?
1
 @willnitschke Oh I see, you still beat your wife. Got it.
1
 @willnitschke Rich from a guy that literally went to college for free Will. Just like a boomer to close the door right after he walks through it.
1
 @willnitschke Not at all, just pointing out your hypocrisy.
1
@willnitschke Actually I wrote the word "hypocrisy" so putting the word hypocritical in quotes makes you look stupid. Maybe try looking up the word if you are confused by it. I'm not your carer.
1
 @willnitschke You're conflating laws. You already stated in another comment that governments over regulate business. Now you're saying the opposite.
1
 @willnitschke I just did, laws. Are you struggling to keep up and confusing yourself?
1
 @willnitschke Take that as a yes.
1
 @willnitschke You confused yourself. Must be why you keep liking your own comments. You write it, post it, then read it back and say "oh I agree with that". Pretty funny really.
1
 @willnitschke Oh dear, butthurt boy is back.
1
 @willnitschke Still butthurt I see. Catch a grip Will.
1
 @willnitschke Aww, the sealioning butthurt baby is "just asking questions". Lol. You're so transparent.
1
 @willnitschke See. You're so butthurt still.
1
 @willnitschke Sounds like you're pretty damn butthurt. Bad day Will?
1
 @ExPwner Butthurt Willy is back on his alt to act more butthurt.
1
 @willnitschke Acting butthurt won't help you Will, it will just let me keep calling you butthurt Willy.
1
 @ExPwner You and Will literally post scripts lol.
1
 @willnitschke Oh dear, butthurt Willy is back. Still whining I see.
1
 @ExPwner Rule 2, James projects.
1
@willnitschke "That you have "share-like things" that aren't actually shares?" They are shares. They are literal shares of the business. They share a proportion of the ownership. That's a share. "That worker co-ops don't have bosses, etc.?" I never said they don't have bosses, I said that leadership inside a worker cooperative is elected, meaning they can be removed.
1
 @willnitschke Nope, legal ownership. Nope, they usually have multiple leaders who are elected, unlike capitalists.
1
 @willnitschke It makes sense becasue it isn't individual ownership. And they do own it.
1
 @willnitschke No, the people.
1
 @willnitschke You want to know the difference between a few thousand elected people, and a few million voters? Sheer quantity should be a clue.
1
@willnitschke Continuing to repeat something after it has been explained to you multiple times in multiple ways is just sad.
1
@willnitschke You haven't read the explanations at all. Otherwise you would know that calling the entire population of a country the same thing as the government of the country is just silly. In no universe does "the workers", which is a very literal description of people who have jobs, mean "the government".
1
 @willnitschke So you agree your question is silly. Good.
1
 @willnitschke And yet there you are.
1
 @willnitschke Calling yourself out, then forgetting and getting confused is actually troubling behaviour Will. Seek professional help.
1
 @willnitschke Perceiving someone telling you to get help as an attack is a big red flag.
1
 @willnitschke I called you a psychopath because you act like one. But feel free to try your sad gaslighting.
1
@willnitschke How you act like an emotionless loonatic who wants to remove human rights and refuses to understand words written on a page. More gaslighting though, always fun.
1
 @willnitschke See, like that. It's pathetic.
1
@willnitschke You are Will.
1
@willnitschke Try reading more than 1 comment Will. Here, allow me to reply like you: What?
1
@willnitschke I've already told you, but your attention span is too short to learn.
1
 @willnitschke Explain what?
1
 @willnitschke Know what?
1
@willnitschke Explain what?
1
@willnitschke No idea what you're on about.
1
@willnitschke You seem to be very lost now.
1
@willnitschke So we agree, you are lost and confused.
1
@willnitschke Wonderful. Well when you take a breather and clear your head we can get back to you thinking workers are te government, or something equally silly.
1
@willnitschke See, this is why you should clear your head. Inventing narratives doesn't do anything other than make you look sad.
1
 @willnitschke See, like that, writes itself. Watching you lose is fun.
1
@frontrowviews You can't reason with this lot. They don't care if people die due to a lack of human rights. They would rather capitalists hoard it to protect the GDP of a country than actually feed people.
1
@willnitschke "Of course, because of corrupt and incompetent governments" Hold on a sec. So now it's government's job to feed and house people?
1
@willnitschke I'm not the one claiming government is incompetent for not being able to feed people, that was you.
1
@ExPwner I'm not the one blaming government for people not being fed. Will not seems to think government has an obligation to feed people in capitalism.
1
@ExPwner Yeah it is. He said there is more than enough food and water for all us in the world, but corrupt and incompetent government isn't distributing it. So is it now government's job to hand people food? Is that their obligation? Let me know when you figure it out.
1
@ExPwner That's an even stupider argument. Government gets in the way of people without any money being fed by capitalism? Okay, now you're both nuts.
1
@ExPwner Both would be valid to what he said. Both are dumb as they are either nonsensical or go directly against his worldview.
1
 @willnitschke Except they do feed people, millions of them.
1
@willnitschke Aside from the massive subsidies farms get meaning governments do indeed help to grow the food, they also don't need to grow it themselves. They buy it and hand it out, taking an existing product and distributing it. Well, in reality they give people credits to buy food themselves, but you get the point. Do you think when I buy food at the shops and cook it for myself I didn't really feed myself because I didn't grow it? Is that really your claim?
1
@willnitschke So first you don't understand the economics of farming and food prices, now you don't understand subsidies, oh and you continue to fail to understand what welfare is...after you admitted that it's socialism in another thread.
1
 @ExPwner Then stop doing it.
1
 @ExPwner Sure you do sweetheart.
1
 @ExPwner Aww, you believe that? Cope.
1
 @ExPwner Awwz jumping onto both accounts to cry? Cope.
1
 @ExiledSummoner Total nutters I know.
1
 @willnitschke That's 2 different people now you've made that comment about. Sounds like Will is stark raving mad and wants to project his condition on everyone he disagrees with.
1
 @willnitschke No, just you. You would know that if you read the comment properly rather than asserting your own meaning. Your hypocrisy is also a joke.
1
 @willnitschke Nah, just you. Thanks though.
1