Youtube comments of King Orange (@kingorange7739).
-
56
-
51
-
48
-
48
-
Ukraine has spent enough years of its history under the cold abandonment and oppression of other nations. When they provided food to the Russian Empire, they starved, when they provided for the Soviets, they were murdered and pillaged, when they welcomed the Germans to their lands, to be willingly help them end Stalin’s rain, they were exterminated. Now when Ukraine opened a peaceful gesture to Russia, Russia spat in their faces. Russia has invaded and have no reservations with raping Ukraine while the Western powers will only stand by and watch, not even having the courage to stand up for a country that has stood up for its self and only asked the UN to enforce its law. It’s time for it to end, as an American, it disgusts me how we as the leading power of NATO and a leading nation of the UN won’t do anything to enforce the sovereignty of this nation. I will give Ukraine my full support. But perhaps it is time for government reform, to have a government that can be strong again, for it to take its rightful place and free its self from the negligence and abuse of the nations around them. It’s time for the people that truly endured for centuries to have a ruling place in the world politics. This is a warning to surrounding nations. If you continue to turn your back and abuse the good people of Ukraine, then don’t be surprised when they do the same to you. Russia especially. For the memory of the men and women of steel. God bless the people of Ukraine.
32
-
27
-
22
-
21
-
19
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
@ThoughtGaze "So you're judging that ras's life is not worth minimal effort because of the bad he's done. that's the whole point of the no kill rule. to not judge someone's life as unworthy just because of the bad they did. you really have not thought this through." - If you actually think that, then you fundamentally do not understand the no kill rule that multiple sources cover, Batman never made the no kill rule for others, he did it for himself for 2 reasons, the first was philosophy. He believed that if he actually killed someone it would make himself the same kind of person as the man that killed his parents.
The second reason was fear, Batman feared that if he started the path of killing that it would corrupt him and make him go down the path of being an actual criminal. That it would not separate him from the men he was fighting. Batman through multiple sources even admits to the prospect of wanting to kill someone, such as when he confessed to Jason in Red Hood.
Jason: "what, your moral code just won't allow for that? It's too hard to cross that line?"
Batman: "No! God almighty, no. It would be too damn easy. All I ever wanted to do is kill him, a day doesn't go by where I don't think about subjecting him to every horrendous torture he has dealt on to others and then, end him. But if I do that. If I allow myself to go down that place, I'll never come back."
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
@stormyprawn Thank you for your counter argument and unlike some people, know how to keep it respectful.
"I'll explain my analogy to show where you're wrong." - U may proceed.
"Some cars truly aren't designed to drive on the road, there's some that can go off-road and on road but most are designed primarily to go on road." - Ok does not mean the car is required for the road to still be a car. So if Hitler's socialism "can go off the road," then it could still be considered socialism.
"So too does socialism mean different things to different people." - That we can agree on, unfortunately socialism's definition has been distorted so badly that often people can't even come to a proper consensus on what it even means. However since I pulled most of my definitions from Oxford, I figured it was only appropriate to do the same for socialism definition which is the only definition that can apply for all its variants, or at least most.
Socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
"Generally speaking however, the socialism described by Marx actually was about the worker and shifting power to them." - True which is why neither I nor Tik argue its Marxism. Just because National Socialists were socialists does not mean they were or even allied with Marxists.
"The different sects of socialism describe the worker's control over the means of productions in different ways." - There are some that do, however you have to remember, socialism predates Marxism. Pre Marx socialism had variants that were not about the workers at all but rather ensuring communal control as a whole, worker or not. In fact, socialism's overarching origin can be dated even all the way back to politicians in the Roman Empire. And none of them so much as mentioned concepts as worker or class.
"Some point to the state to control the economy as a representative of the workers (though I would scarcely call the Soviet Union, China and other examples as socialist)." - I mean they are failed socialists. And highlights one of socialism's fundamental flaws, but ur points still stand.
"Most modern day socialists and some socialists in history believe in workplace democracy where the workers directly control their workplace." - Which no one is denying, however even as you yourself have admitted, not all of them did. If u want to come out and say that Hitler wasn't truly about the worker, I would agree with u. But frankly neither were many variants of socialism including many Marxist states. I doubt the Soviet Union under Stalin was really doing things in the worker's best interests, considering how many he murdered or starved.
"Saying that socialism is just "state control of the means of productions" has so many layers of misunderstanding baked into it." - Which is why I don't define it as that. Its defined as Communal control. The state is just the extension of said community and technically represents them.
"It's like a black-and-white understanding of politics and history with no nuance whatsoever." - I will agree to that to an extent, however socialism again, has been distorted in definitions throughout history so many times, that you kinda almost have no choice but to oversimplify it. Otherwise there would be no definition anyone could agree on.
"Hell, look at the leftist anarchist movement: they hate state control! Their entire ideology revolves around dismantling the state! Yet they still describe themselves as socialist." - True, however looking at it from an objective standpoint, anarcho socialism is oxymoronic. How are they suppose to ensure socialism if the state does not exist? Its not like the power would come down to individuals since socialism is inherently about collectives and communities. So, to that extent, they propose decentralized structures, but the end result would only be many mini states, with states you cannot have anarchy but without it u cannot have socialism.
"Or what about people organising in trade unions? (though unions don't need to specifically be made up by leftists, labour organising as a concept is a predominantly leftist idea and it's applications often lead to leftist activism)." - True but not all unionists are socialists. Unionists while at times allied with socialists, are not automatically socialists themselves considering that not all of them want to get rid of capitalism. They just work together as workers to get better work conditions and of course an owner is more likely to listen when almost your entire workforce is speaking rather than just one.
"They don't need or want the state to control them, there's several cases of the state attempting (successfully of unsuccessfully) of crushing unions." - True, but not all states are socialist nations.
"The Soviet Union basically neutered its trade unions because they often opposed the centralisation, central planning policies, collectivisation, etc." - True, which furthers my point. Why is it when Hitler does it, people are like "see this is proof he wasn't a socialist," but they are so quick to retract when Lenin or Stalin does it. Of course you do have some people that are delusional enough to say "that was not "real socialism" either." This is where the "State Capitalism" fallacy quickly takes surface which has often devolved into shifting blame to the other side of the economic spectrum for socialism's own failings. I do appreciate your attempted counter arguments, you did present them well, and I appreciate that you kept things respectful. That becomes more rare by the second, but I do feel your arguments are suffering problems on two fronts.
A. I did not define socialism as exclusively state control. Yes state control is one form, but its not the only.
B. Your emphases on workers shows me that you are subscribing too much to Marxist definition, yes, while some variants of socialism are very much about the workers. Not all of them are, and especially in Pre Marx Socialism, it was not emphasized anywhere near to the same degree it is now. In fact variants full on rejected worker's concept. I would argue Hitler was one of those people. He did lie about being part of the workers, and trying to help them. When in reality, Hitler's communal control was never going to be through the workers, but instead through the state and race. However, that does not debunk Hitler as a socialist. It only means he wasn't a Marxist or Social Democrat.
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
"But he hated socialists and communists and had them murdered in large numbers," - Communists were Marxists who he already explained. Being a socialist does not mean ur going to like every variant. Monarchs killed other monarchs, capitalists killed other capitalists. Does that invalidate them too? As for socialism, look at the 04:08:00 section.
"before he even came to power." - He hated marxists who he viewed as part of the Jewish conspiracy.
"He believed in the state above all else, not any sense of collectivism. How can you ignore that?" - Because your failing to understand that the state is a collective. There is no such thing as a one man state. States are the public sector, the ruling community of the nation.
"That is why he is a Fascist." - Except he isn't. Strongly suggest looking up the real definition of fascism as described by Gentile and Mussolini.
"He abandoned Socialism in prison while he wrote Mein Kampf." - According to what? Mein Kampf itself advocates him as a socialist. So clearly that statement holds no truth.
"Is it possible to try to understand history without coming at it from either an anti-socialism or anti-capitalism viewpoint?" - Both yes and no. History is always going to have biases, the main thing is to look into definitions and be able to see how much the evidence favors?
"Can we not do that anymore?" - Depends who u ask. At the end of the day TIK maybe bias, and there are many parts of his views I disagree with, however none of this is going to stop until people at the very least understand that the Nazis were not this far right thing. They were at the very least in the center with stronger leanings to the left when we look at it on how much political and economic control they had.
"I have no need for him to be or not be a socialist." - Ok, then if he is a socialist, why would u have a problem with that?
"I would just like the historical facts to be put forward without ideological bias." - Every person has ideological biases. The best way to get closer to the truth is to make those clear when describing and interpreting the evidence and come to your own conclusion.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@zekeybeats2927 "do you have any idea of how beneficial UKs socialism, or any of commonwealth countries socialist agenda is for the citizens? If you are in the states you live with private jails, private health care, in a system that resembles slavery. In social democracies when COVID comes the government takes it upon themselves to make sure the displaced underpaid labour force is paid MORE to stay home than minimum wage, which for me in some places in my country is barely enough to afford basic living costs?" - Dude this is not even an argument. Ur doing what abouts. this has nothing to do with the discussion here. I stated it before and I will say it again, I do not care if u think socialism is beneficial or not. Its not relevant to this argument.
"The only people who like capitalism are gung ho middle class idiots who just like to shit on people poorer than them while creating a class of elite that will dictate policy (and from a capitalistic point of view don’t blame them) with Cold War jitters handed down from their slave family who help keep the majority of people from ever experiencing any political system based on its textbook ideology ." - Dude, ur once again doing the zealotry type connotations I warned u about. Again ur projecting a personal stake which will not get u anywhere in a debate.
"Socialism is the workers owning the means of production." - That is not the definition. Ur defining Marxism, not socialism as a whole.
"Co ops. Nothing that takes out the private nature of ownership or owning a business. I just finished listening to this guy try and imply socialism is a right wing(totalitarian), left wing, private, public, facist system." - Dude totalitarianism has nothing to do with right wing. Stalin was also a totalitarian.
"Socialism is overseen by government to avoid free markets(where one ceo gets paid more than. 300 minimum wage labourers)
It’s meant for you to own more of your surplus. That’s it. Is anyone convinced any system is not “state?” Inherently? Do we think that North American capitalist democracy does anything more than allow public officials, democratically voted in then use private capitalist funds to drive whatever narrative your lobby wants to push? - Again this is not relevant to ur argument. Dude I can only say the same stuff so many times. I don't care what ur opinion of socialism and capitalism are. that has nothing to do with the video. TIK literally has debunked people like u near the end of his video. Again I would suggest watching the full video and then coming to a conclusion ur self. But maybe try using a bit more of an open mind.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@DeathRayGraphics "Hold on... the "owner's" money? That is a very tenuous concept any way you look at it. In the first place, the owner's so-called money is often a line of credit or a bank loan-- not really "his" in the most real sense." - In the context of investment, it is his money. The point of that is he or she is taking the risk within opening of the business. If the business goes out, the employees simply find a new job, however the owner is stuck having to pay that debt off either way. That is part of the risk.
"However, to the extent that the owner has a large pool of cash of his own, did he not make much of it exactly how I described: by not compensating his workers for the full measure of their productivity?" - The full measure of their payment is pre determined. They agree to a wage of payment. Which as mentioned is a secured payment. No matter how much or how little the company profits, the employee will get paid that amount either way.
"On that analysis, much of his money is rightfully the workers', morally if not under the law (laws written by and for capitalists, I should remind you)." - According to who? Once again, the workers agree to a compensation that is negotiated between themselves and the owner in question.
"Our system of wage labor is by no means organic or proper." - It is literally the definition of organic, as again it is a consensual agreement done by both parties.
"It is an established system of laws with winners and losers--" - Except those losers are not the employees, the problem which is shared among all socialists is that they try to view economics as a zero sum gain. When in reality both parties, mutually benefit.
"it did not arise from a collective decision of the nation. It was created top-down by the elite that benefits from it." - Not really, it was created on an individual level.
4
-
@DeathRayGraphics "Which is, of course, the most exploitative situation and the one that requires unionization more than all the others." - Except it isn't. It is basic value of the work in question. Once again, why would you pay someone $20 for a job someone else offers to do for 10. Competition upon low skilled workers is much higher which is why they typically get paid less. High Supply, Low Demand. By contrast a job like say, a pilot has much more value within an employment market because he or she has skills that not many others do in a high supply. As such, he or she has much more negotiating power. And yes, Unions can help employees protest this as a larger group. If they want to boycott a company for their belief of unfair wages, that is within their rights to do.
"Exactly. That is called "exploitation". - It isn't. Anymore than it would be considered exploitive for a customer to choose the cheaper product.
"The worker does not willingly give more for less." - Except he does, no one forces him to do anything. He either agrees to the payment or doesn't.
"He does so because he has no options, unless he can enter into collective bargaining." - Or when there is another job that will offer a higher payment, in which case they will often switch jobs. As mentioned, some places will offer higher wages, to incentivize employment at their locations over others. That is especially more prevalent now, given the employee shortages across many regions.
Now yes, collective bargaining can be used to help increase the voice of certain employees, and in the context of a market. I have nothing against it.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@itcouldbelupus2842 "and if you don't have anyone to form a commune with?" - Find people.
"Capitalism is coercive, you can't opt." - How so?
"I basically live in a commune and we still very much have to participate in Capitalism in order to live, it isn't voluntary." - Having the option to say no does not make one immune to the self inflicted consequences of saying no. It would literally be no different in a coop style business. It is a job after all, not a charity. I work so I can eat, not so someone else I don't know eats.
"When your choice is participate or die, that isn't voluntary." - Which is what socialism quite literally inflicted. No your choices are to participate, find another source of income, or die. And even death is based on the need to survive, not based on someone threatening to murder you like socialism did.
"The main reason I live in a small community is because it's the only way we can survive under late stage capitalism," - Define that.
"half of my house has been homeless one time or another." - What do you mean?
"Capitalism isn't voluntary." - Yes it is, no one is threatening to murder or harm you by not doing it.
"Capitalism isn't freedom." - It is, however freedom does not equal doing everything you want without consequence.
"Capitalism is tyranny." - Your definition of tyranny is someone refusing to do handouts.
"If you are poor you sell your freedom in order to afford to live." - And under socialism, you sell your freedom in order to not be shot or sent to a labor camp.
"It's never been voluntary." - Again your definition of voluntary is to have handouts.
"Capitalism is only freedom to the rich," - Few members of my family are rich, yet here we are. Also mentioned above.
"the same way the Lord's were free under Feudalism." - Except they were not even free bud, considering they had to answer to the King at the time lol.
"The serfs, not so much." - Don't recall them choosing their job or ability to get paid.
"You're a fool if you believe otherwise." - I must be a fool then, lol. No, the problem with your entire assessment is you think the freedom to make choices should also make you immune to the self inflicted consequences of your choices. Basic fact in life, you don't work, you don't eat. Even down to ancient tribalism. Socialists who try to wrestle this concept are doing nothing more than deluding themselves, or they are lying and the reality is their ultimatums will be just as bad if not worse.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@slaterslater5944 “you probably think the origin of species is to overthrow dinosaurs in favor of mammals.” - Those were ur own words and is a form of gaslighting, as ur purposely saying something that has nothing to do with the topic and using it in an attempt to get me to doubt my own sanity. It’s manipulative, slander or libel considering we are writing, and depending on what country ur in is considered a form of abuse. So why r u lying about that? Again Marx’s connotation against the bourgeoisie is writing on the wall. Or do u think Marx condemns capitalism because of the proletariat?
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workingmen of all countries unite!”
“And here it becomes evident that the bourgeoisie is unfit any longer to be the ruling class in society and to impose its conditions of existence upon society as an over-riding law. It is unfit to rule because it is incompetent to assure an existence to its slave within his slavery, because it cannot help letting him sink into such a state that it has to feed him instead of being fed by him. Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie; in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society.
The essential condition for the existence, and for the sway of the bourgeois class, is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labor. Wage-labor rests exclusively on competition between the laborers. The advance of industry, whose involuntary promoter is the bourgeoisie, replaces the isolation of the laborers, due to competition, by their revolutionary combination, due to association. The development of modern industry, therefore, cuts from under its feet the very foundation on which the bourgeoisie produces and appropriates products. What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”
“The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women. He has not even a suspicion that the real point is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce the community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial. Our bourgeois, not content with having the wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. Bourgeois marriage is in reality a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with, is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.” - This one especially I find rather funny considering he’s making quite a bit of assumptions on someone who are merely business owners. Almost like he’s trying to paint them in a bad light.
Gaslighting def: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@slaterslater5944 "I see you don't understand what genocide means either." - "the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group" -
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group
Ethnic Group: a community or population made up of people who share a common cultural background or descent.
Nice try.
"Surprise surprise." - Really now. According to what?
"So, what we're the equivalent of the extermination camps like Sobibor, Treblinka etc in the USSR?" - Really now, Holodomor which was responsible for up to 10 million Ukrainian deaths, Red terror, responsible for 200,000 deaths, Kazakh
Polish Operation of the NKVD, Great Purge in 1936-38 responsible for up to a million and 200,000 deaths in just 2 years. These are just a few, sure were any of these on the exact same scale as Nazi cleansing? No. Nor will I intend to say it is. But considering things like the Holodomor killed almost as many as the extermination camps did, its worth noting. And thats just in the Soviet Union, not even including the actions Mao's China did. Mao who is noted to be the number 1 mass murderer in history with the only debate being between him and Genghis Khan.
"Capitalism has also killed more people than Hitler, by the way." - Which regime and any within the same span of time as Hitler?
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@mikemcmike6427 And now you have proven my point even further. Again for someone who claims to have a degree in political science, you are spouting caveman level of vocabulary. You are pathetic, in spite of every chance I give for you to actually present a convincing argument to change my mind you would rather resort to the same harassment and insults you always do. At this point, you are basically trolling and have no relevance. It just shows you are desperate for attention instead of actually confronting the root of the debate.
Oh wow, someone on Youtube with no face, no proof of his credibility, and no language beyond insults calls me a useless sack. Wow, really did a number there. LOL
I honestly pity on how low your intellect is. It never ceases to amaze me how you are aiding my arguments just on the merit that you keep undermining your own credibility as a debater. Again try to get any third party to take what you say seriously after seeing the way you are acting. They wouldn't and honestly probably couldn't.
Get a damn life buddy. Do something that matters. For someone who claims I am so insignificant you seem to make it your life mission to see how much you can try to degrade me. I don't think I need to get into how hypocritical it is or how pathetic it is to get your highs off of that. Yeah I lost my ex, that's life. You win some, you lose some. But I am unlikely to take the word of someone who likely never had a girlfriend to begin with.
Mike, seriously man. Get some help, take some therapy, see a councilor, join the military. I don't give a shit. Just you really need to find something better to do with your life. Because won't lie, it is funny to see how many other people have recognized how much of a desperate bully you are. 😂
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Except they are controls. Wage control, price control, resource control, price commissars, workers battalions, state land reforms, quotas, autarchy. If the state is effectively saying the price I can sell something for, Who I can trade with, and what I make under the threat of expropriation, how is that in any way capitalist?
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." -OWNED OR REGULATED.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@timobrienwells "No, TIK is not on the ball. His claims are wrong and unsubstantiated.." - Elaborate
"Germany did not lose the war because of oil." - Not by itself
"The Germans had tight but sufficient supplies of oil through the war until late 1944." - Not necessarily. U have to understand, that while Germany has enough oil to continue to wage the war, it was not enough to sustain any major operation. Hence why Kursk was the last major German offensive on the eastern front.
"Operation Barbarossa did not fail because the Wehrmacht ran out of fuel. It failed because of poor decisions at critical times. It also suffered from logistical problems due to distance and weather, as was expected." - I will give u that. But Tik is only saying the oil problem was adding to their logistical issues which were true. Even Potential History covers this.
"TIK has claimed that the Germans had more vehicles in 1942, but no fuel to run them." - To run all of them in a consistent offensive, yes.
"He makes this claim without any supporting evidence whatsoever." - Watch some of his later videos. He provides more sources during those.
"If this ludicrous claim were true then why did the Germans then produce even more vehicles in 1943 and 1944?" - U mean mainly tanks? Because they actually did not produce as many U boats or aircraft. But to answer ur question in the most basic sense, It was because u want good reserve of vehicles when the country sake depends on it. Plus since by 1943 they were fighting a war on the defensive, they could afford more vehicles since oil was not getting consumed as much.
"If they had no fuel for them, what would be the use? The whole claim is just ridiculous and uninformed." - Not really. Ur trying to treat it like Tik is saying Germany had zero oil after 1941. What he is trying to say is 1941 was their last chance to get oil before the deficit began affecting the Wehrmacht. This is why only AGS advances in 1942. Since they only had enough oil to supply one army group in a major offensive.
"TIK's problem is that he does not know his subject matter." - How so?
"He completely ignores, or does not know about, the doubling of synthetic fuel production from 1941 onwards." - He literally has a video link in the description covering Germany's synthetic oil production.
"He also ignores the large increase in domestic crude production in and around Germany during the same period." - True, but while that helped a great amount. It was never going to be enough.
"TIK reads and believes historical revisionists." - Such as?
3
-
3
-
3
-
@stephanedaguet915 "UK, but all around the world. Physical violence is not permitted in our modern world, unless in case of people's riot when the ruling class feel itself endangered, not physically but in their power." - Ignoring that many people who also work to demolish said systems do the same thing.
"Is to limit the power of the state and put it down more to the individual citizen."
"But in democracy theoretically the state is the people!" - the state is the people collectively, not individually. Just because someone votes to control u, does not change the fact ur being controlled.
"Yes it is not really the case due to the fact power is actually always in the hands of the ruling class. "individual citizen" ... or rich citizen ?" - Ironically empowering the state empower them. Or did u forget the state is composed of the elite as well?
"What is more efficient ? Individualism or cooperation ? In the wildlife, sure cooperation is always more efficient ..." - Not necessarily. Collectivism cannot survive without individualism because individualism is what proposes the key to thought, its what propels someone to want to become more than where they currently are. Individual incentives are far more impactful than collective incentives.
"individualism is a waste of time, perpetually reinventing the wheel, lot of resources used separately at the same time by individuals." - How is individual invention a waste? Or an individual having control of their own life? Do u not think they would live a better life through being able to control it rather than surrendering it to the collective?
"Lot of major technical discoveries of the last decades were made by public research center in USA or in Europe simply because the states have more resources than private corporation and are more motivated by non profit research." - Ignoring how many other inventions were created by individuals or businesses to improve their own standard of living.
"For example startups are just myths, actually they simply used public patents." - Elaborate.
3
-
@stephanedaguet915 "I know what they claimed.
Do you really trust in these murderers ?" - Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro were also murderers, should we not trust their beliefs either? Also murderers and liars are 2 separate things. And if every response one makes is assuming lies, then it would impossible to ideologically identify anyone. The only time it is key to declare them lying is when there is a contradiction within the logic. But even then it requires context as to why. As even Lenin a hard believer in Marxist Socialism, still had to backtrack in order to prevent Soviet collapse.
"Do not trust the description on the packaging, it just a marketing technique. For example Tony Blair claimed he was socialist (labour) and he had the same policies as Magaret Thatcher.
See : Blatcherism is a term formed as a portmanteau of the names of two British politicians, Tony Blair (Labour Party) and Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party)." - Which is why u look beyond the marketing. However, u cannot just dismiss ideology out of hand. Like anything else, its info needed to be observed. Otherwise as I mentioned before, u could throw that at just about anyone.
And : The view that Tony Blair was Margaret Thatcher's heir was largely adopted by both academics and political journalists.
"Morality : you cannot trust politicians, be suspicious." - I never said trust them. However there is a difference between believing in what they say vs interpreting what they believed in.
"The Italian fascist militia worked for the capitalist against the unions and workers on strike," - The Fascists also incorporated the industries under Nationally controlled corporations and established worker roles in said Corporations.
"exactly as the freikorps did during the Weimar Republic. Members of the Freikorps could be described as conservative, nationalistic, anti-Socialism/Communism. They also murdered leading communists Karl Liebknicht and Rosa Luxemburg. They also attacked meetings of the Spartacists." - I never said Mussolini was a Marxist. But again there is a difference between rejecting a variant of socialism vs rejecting the entirety of it.
"Mussolini was a former socialist but he turn far right, and he isn't the only in the socialist history." - Again what exactly turned him far right by ur logic? Do u even know why Mussolini got kicked out of the Marxist party?
"Fascism despite its claim is not a variant of socialism, is really a variant of capitalism." - Except it isn't. Both Mussolini and Hitler rejected capitalist concepts. For Mussolini it was because of how it divided the National Community and for Hitler it was because of his belief it was Jewish.
"Italian fascists waged war on the unions between 1920 and 1922 when Mussolini took power, burning trade union offices, and beating and torturing trade unionists. In Turin, the key industrial centre, fascist squads celebrated Mussolini coming to power by attacking trade union offices and killing 22 trade unionists." - Ignoring what the political situation was at the time. Mussolini did not want to completely tear the system down like Marxism did, because he believed propelling Italy into a civil war would devastate the nation like it did in the Soviet Union. Mussolini still held his socialist roots. In fact despite no longer being a Marxist, Italy was one of the first nations to recognize the Soviet Union.
3
-
@stephanedaguet915 "They need capitalism for the benefits of the rich ruling class." - They needed it to ensure economic survival, or do u think someone like Lenin cared about the rich?
"Roman empire also was a developed civilization and its economic system was based on slavery. Capitalism is based on employment, it's quite the same, the only difference is capitalism salary its slaves in order to allow them self feeding and lodging and keep them with invisible chains : the fear of unemployment and poverty, and low wages." - Not really, voluntary work for a financial gain is not even comparable to slavery. Especially when as the market expands, so does job opportunity. The only time this does not happen is Monopolies taking control, however such occurrences are rare to happen in a pure free market.
"USSR based on socialism was also a developped country, the wealth of its people raised since the tzar era." - But was still lower than the capitalist nations or even Nazi Germany for a long period of time.
"The fall of USSR was due to the wars its endured : civil war 117-192 with the invasion of its territory by the allied expeditionnary force (USA, UK, France, Japan, ...) + WW2 (more than 27 million casualties and huge destructions + the cold war." - Right so wars that occured almost 70 years ago from its fall is suppose to damage it to that point? I will concede WW2 but u have to remember that the western allies were also suffering from that, mainly Britain who lost its entire colonial empire and France that literally collapsed. As for the Cold War. Both the USA and Soviets were engaging in major spending to win that war. One could do it, the other could not. And its not any other nation's fault that the military spending went that high. The Soviets could of u know, left Eastern Europe years ago.
"The wealth of humanity raised gradually since the neolitic time without the need of capitalism. Capitalism is quite recent in history." - Not effectively.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"The definitions TIK applies are bonkers. No other way of saying it." - U mean the most basic dictionary definitions?
"Capitalism is against corporations? Really? I'm gotta tell you, I've never hear that one before. In fact, I'm pretty sure corporations are a common feature of all economies purporting to be capitalist, and that the only economies where they don't exist are socialist economies." - False, corporations are not privately owned entities, they are collectively owned by a special interest group. Corporatism is not Capitalism.
"Groups are non-private (?), they public entities and public entities are "The State". Uh-huh. Does that include my local herpetology club? Are we few amateur herpetologists "The State"?" - You are not a political community making up a nation or territory. R u?
"Look, if this is how you load the question then anything can become anything. If Capitalism is a economic system governed by individuals, and excludes corporations, associations (free or otherwise), partnerships, or any group, then capitalism does not exist, has never existed, and never could exist." - It does not exclude partnerships nor private associations.
"With these definitions, we are left defining every political system that has ever existed as Socialism. necessarily
"But one only arrived at that point by contorting definitions to the point we are incapable of differentiating radical egalitarianism from virulent racism." - How is this relevant?
"Why in the world, WHY would anyone want to employ such useless language?" - It isn't useless.
This is the very essence of Newspeak.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
"No, Hitler was not a total socialist since he acknowledged elements of private economy." - You mean like Lenin did as well? Not being able to go 100% on a system does not mean you aren't a socialist.
"I think almost each country or each society includes socialistic elements and capitalistic elements. There are only few purepred socialistic or capitalistic societies. Hence, it is a question of the ratio. USA may have a soialist percentage of 5%," - You clearly don't know much of government control of the economy in the USA nowadays.
"Germany today 20%, Third Reich 40%," - Nope.
"DDR 80%, UdSSR in 1940 98%, UdSSR in 1990 90%, North Korea today 98% etc." - Thats not how you define an ideology as socialist or not. As TIK highlights in his video. Even if we were to agree that the Third Reich wasn't socialist, which it was, that doesn't mean National Socialism is not socialism from an ideological standpoint.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DeathRayGraphics "If the risks become smaller over time, common sense says that the productivity of the workers (whose output generated the profits that lessened that risk) should earn them more of the windfall." - Except it isn't. Because if he or she was the one to take the risk, he or she would entitled to the full reward. That is literally how high risk, high reward works. Why would the employees be entitled to higher rewards when they were not the ones taking the risks. Now of course the irony of this, is that more experienced workers who remain in the company longer will often get paid more than those that didn't.
"Instead, under unregulated capitalism, the United States has seen nearly three generations of wage stagnation and the hollowing out of the middle class, which is what is leading to fascism, not "socialism". - The United States as far from an unregulated economy. Also while stagnation of wages, can happen. That would only occur in a natural market when the supply and demand reaches an equilibrium. And everyone is subject to that basic market rule until someone tries to get an outsider to interfere with it. Hence where state involvement typically happens.
"Capitalism is not patriotic. It uses up people the same way it uses up natural resources." - No, it really doesn't. It bases a payment based on the value they have in the market. Because once again, the value of a product or employee is not objective, it is subjective. It does no good to put a lot of work into something no one wants. By the same token, it should not surprise a low skilled worker that he or she is not getting paid as much as a high skilled job or the owner taking the risks in the first place.
"It does not care how much ruin it brings because the wealthy always have ways to insulate themselves." - And once again, what is it "ruining?" I have been a worker myself bud, and there was nothing exploitive about agreeing to a wage, working for it, and as soon as I felt that wage was becoming unfair or an opportunity for a better paying job presented itself, I took it.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@DeathRayGraphics "Except it isn't. Because if he or she was the one to take the risk, he or she would entitled to the full reward."
“Hardly. In the first place, no one person in a business exclusively takes the full risk of all contingencies upon themselves,” - How so?
“nor does the capitalist even take the greatest risk. (Who risks more in coal mining: the miners or the owner?)” - In the context of finances, the owner. And what’s funny was I even predicted you making this exact analogy. And typically higher risk jobs would on average generate a higher pay for the workers.
“Nor is profit a "reward". Profits cannot be generated without the output of the laborer. If such were possible, there would be no need for labor at all.” - True, but in most cases, profit cannot be generated exclusively through labor either. And as mentioned, the labor is paid regardless of profit generation. Even if a company is losing money, they would still have to pay the employees the same amount for their services.
"That is literally how high risk, high reward works. Why would the employees be entitled to higher rewards when they were not the ones taking the risks."
“Because compensation for one's productivity is not a "reward". It is simply what they are owed for their labor.” - Which is what they already get in the payment that was agreed upon beforehand.
"The United States as far from an unregulated economy. Also while stagnation of wages, can happen. That would only occur in a natural market when the supply and demand reaches an equilibrium."
“Or, where capitalists have rigged the system to accumulate ever more of the profits while the laborer's get the crumbs, which for almost three generations now is exactly what has happened in the US, hence the slow -rolling economic collapse we are experiencing right now.” - And guess what causes it, not the free market but state meddling. That is the irony. Corporate Oligarchs do not care about capitalism’s principles and would throw it away as soon as convenient. That is why ideological capitalists call for limitations on the state, since you can’t rig the system if the thing rigging it has little to no power to do so.
"And everyone is subject to that basic market rule until someone tries to get an outsider to interfere with it. Hence where state involvement typically happens."
“Capitalists seek the interference of outsiders all the time, when they outsource their labor.” - Clearly you are not understanding what I mean by outsiders. I am referring to non participants in the economy, such as the state. And yes, some capitalist members will stray away from the ideals and those are as much an enemy to capitalism as they are to your socialist ideals.
"No, it really doesn't. It bases a payment based on the value they have in the market.
"A market they manipulate on 100 levels, but go on.” - Once again, done through the state. And I don’t agree with their influences there either.
"Because once again, the value of a product or employee is not objective, it is subjective. It does no good to put a lot of work into something no one wants. By the same token, it should not surprise a low skilled worker that he or she is not getting paid as much as a high skilled job or the owner taking the risks in the first place."
“Again you suppose that all "risk" belongs to the capitalist, but by this you simply mean the risk of bankruptcy. But a person working in a precarious position for an employer in a company town risks a great deal more.” - Bankruptcy, being in severe debt that would take them years to pay off, and their credit rates going way far down.
“They risk losing their health insurance if they are fired,” - Something an owner also risks if their company goes under.
“they risk being fired if they attempt to unionize, and they and all their neighbors risk utter ruin by working for a company that controls the fate of their entire town if the company decides to pull up stakes and move to Vietnam or Mexico.” - And if that happens, they have the option to work for a different company. Yes they can risk being fired, but that is the end of it once when that occurs. They can seek a new job or better yet, open a new business themselves. Afterall if all it requires is labor by your logic, then a group of 10 opening a brand new company should be easy by that metric.
"...and there was nothing exploitative about agreeing to a wage, working for it, and as soon as I felt that wage was becoming unfair or an opportunity for a better paying job presented itself, I took it."
“Wage labor is itself exploitation. In a system where the individual has no bargaining power and where the capitalists work ceaselessly to make sure they never gain it (see Amazon), of course you cannot recognize your own exploitation.” - Because it isn’t. Even as a regular worker, I had some negotiating power, I had the ability to ask for more if I felt it was something that was deserved. Working for the company was my choice. And of course if I felt that it wasn’t being fair to me, all I had to do was find another job with more favorable conditions to my needs.
“You've been conditioned to believe that being paid nothing more than a wage which does not reflect your actual productive output is as natural and proper as, I dunno, letting your employer control your health insurance.” - No, it is because I can recognize the difference between something being operated at my expense vs when it produces mutual gain. None of it is conditioning, it is participating in a basic market. Something that is easy to understand even as a 5 year old. You have been conditioned to believe that people are entitled to more than what their services are actually valued at. And of course the irony is, because of that continued pursuit you would rather put tyrants into power that dictate everyone’s lives than accept that capitalism is the natural market. There is nothing inherently exploitative about it. Yes there are some bad apples in the tree, but considering socialim’s track record, I do not believe that trying to group the whole ideal as bad over the actions of a few is something you socialists would want to have held to the same standard. Or do we need to get into the actual exploitation and crimes that were committed by the Soviet Union, Mao’s China, North Korea, Vietnam, Venezuela, and others just to name a few.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@slaterslater5944 "No, "the whole point" of Marx's writing is to describe Capitalism and analyse history through a materialist lense." - U mean how Engels puts it which still advocates a change in the current system?
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch."
"From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought," - Meaning Engels at the very least did advocate a revolution.
"You don't have a clue what you're talking about." - No u.
"You probably think the point of "The Origin of Species " is to overthrow dinosaurs in favour of mammals." - I see u r resorting to gaslighting now.
"Or you would, if you weren't so d you'd never heard of it." - More gaslighting.
"By the way, why are you so dishonest?" - I haven't been. I've been wrong before and the few times that I am, I am willing to admit it, but I have no been dishonest. Or do u fail to recognize that u have to use ur brain on some terms to break down their meaning?
3
-
"Flaws with the premise:
Socialism is not, I repeat not*, state control of the means of production, and it has *never been. Socialism is worker control of the means of production," - Except it isn't. You have once again fallen under the camp Tik warned about. Socialism by definition: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." - The community. Has nothing to do with the workers. Now workers can be a community, hence you get Marxism. But Marxism is not socialism but only a variant of socialism.
"now this can be manifested through the ownership of the means of production by the state," - Which is where state control was born.
"but even most marxists trended towards workers running their workplaces, and through their workplace unions the state." - which would still enable the state to hold control or state like groups.
"Misunderstanding this during the premise is, I believe, your fundamental flaw with the entire 5-hour video. If you want to claim that all communist states have had state control of industry, well, I'll point you to Das Capital, where Marx directly says that only an industrial state can have a communist revolution, and only through a democracy run by the workers, not the party, can Communism be realized." - Which is why he is talking about socialism, not communism. Communism within reality is nothing more but a pipe dream based on the delusion of a potential paradise.
"And I want you to stop and think, were any nations run by communists, run as a democracy by the workers as opposed to the *party*." - The establishment of the one party state came because of the extreme during the "worker revolutions"
"I believe that Stalinist Russia and Maoist China had more in common with fascist ideology than they did marxist ideology," - Which is something TIK highlights in the video when discussing Animal Farm by George Orwell. Socialism is the precursor to Fascism. Also hence why Fascism had its root in socialism.
"by their tight party grip, and their parallels to Umberto Eco's 14 points." - To a degree yes.
"Socialism has always been marked as an ideology steeped in class-based conflict," - except it hasn't. Ur once again ignoring pre marx socialist ideologies, many of which had nothing to do with class or workers.
"the workers (proletariat) vs. the capitalists (bougiouse), and to remove that is to remove the heart of socialism," - No, it is to remove the heart of Marxism and socialist ideologies that came around the same time or after Marxism. Class conflict was not inherent to pre marx socialism. In fact almost none of them mention it.
"and to lean into the more capitalist idea of class collaboration. Capitalism's halmark is the absolutist private ownership of the means of production, and its use to generate profit for the owner with no regard to the will of the workers save where it impacts the bottom line." - Once again capitalism holds no bias for or against the worker. Its a purely open market.
"Hitler's Nazi ideology falls on the capitalist side of things, albeit with a heavy-handed state to beat them back into line when they stray too far from the government's wishes." - Which is not capitalism by definition. You cannot control your own means or production as a private owner if the state is completely manhandling the economy and placing restrictions on nearly every aspect of your production and trade.
"Fascism can side-step the race-based hatred," - Fascism has nothing to do with race bud.
"but it requires an other in order to justify it's violence, and a mythical or semi-mythical past to call back to as an impossible goal to justify its continued existance." - Its past to call back to is because its more traditional and even then relies on distant pasts, not current. Not only that but Marxism also justifies its violence in a us vs them mentality.
"For Italy it exalted the Italian and his glorious past above all others, and engaged in the attempted cultural genocide of the Slovene population, and is why Italy doesn't own Fiume in the modern day." - The same way Marxists did cultural genocide against religion and capitalists in general?
"For Spain, this was Franco's vision of the 'Spaniard', and he spent decades trying to eliminate socialism and regionalism of all stripes to 'regenerate the Spanish nation'." - Firstly you have to look at the socialists that were prominent back then to understand why they were fighting them, secondly France wasn't really a fascist but rather just an ultra nationalist.
"Nazism exalted the Aryan, a smaller definition than the 'german' that a more traditional German Fascism would've likely focused on, but it was an exaltation in the name of 'restoring and reclaiming germanic identity and pride'." - That was part of it, but not the only thing. Hitler's racism stemmed on the history of German pride, but also stemmed from geopolitical and economic climates that existed at the time.
"I would recommend you investigate Umberto Eco's 14 points, or just read his essay on Ur-fascism to understand why people will call Hitler a fascist, even if he hated his contemporaries, even though I have little doubt he would've hated them simply for not being 'aryan' enough regardless." - Having similar points does not automatically associate him with Fascism. Hitler never subscribed to Fascist ideology, in fact he often looked down on it.
"Flaws in Part 1:
Capitalism is indeed, the individual or group ownership of the means of production, but it is by no means anti-state, capitalism in fact requires a state to function in any capacity." - Debatable. This is something he covers in one of his response videos.
"Capitalism requires a strong government capable of ensuring the property rights of the capitalist in order to actually function, it's why anyone supporting Libertarianism, the small-government pro-capitalist stance, gets laughed at by the left." - without any understanding of what the advocation is. There are alternatives to the state, now they won't work well in practice hence why most are not anarcho capitalists. However, while TIK did over simplifying capitalism is anti state control. Even by definition.
"It also does not preclude a non-democratic state from being capitalist, if a dictator owns a factory, and wields the might of the state to favor that factory, is that not capitalist?" - No, because if the dictator controls the state, he is not a private owner. At that point he isn't owning it as an individual but a collective.
"It's simply a private owner acting in his own best interest after all." - Which is where the flaws in your logic come in, he or she would no longer be a private owner. You are a public controller. Controlling the state which is a public or communal domain.
"I would also not lean on the Austrian school of economics, one created by fascist collaborators in the wake of WWII and headed by one Ludwig von Mises, in order to define socialism and capitalism, if you are going to do that, you kinda need a voice from the other side of the aisle to actually get a more balanced view of both, might I suggest using some Marx to balance out Mises?" - Like Marx has much credibility?
"Your insistence that public = state also makes your argument incoherent, as a State is a specific organization within and emergent from the public," - The state represents the public sector and controls the public sector. While yes a state is emergent from public, its because it has to be. Public control or societal control is the same as state control.
"and not all groups form into their own 'mini-states' in the way you seem to describe." - He never said all groups, he referred to corporations and coops.
"A State is an organization established to ensure mediation between groups and the protection of all groups under its aegis, not merely a 'collection of people'," - Except that is not the definition: "
“otherwise capitalism has never existed because the existence of investors and shareholders turns a traditionally capitalist enterprise into a socialist one.” - Not a socialist one, but more socialistic, hence mixed economies. Capitalism and socialism exist on spectrums. TIK is right when he said that there has never be a pure capitalist economy, the same way socialists say there hasn’t been communism either.
“Assuming that the 'economy' is capitalism, now that's a dishonest framing if I've ever seen one! The economy is the name that is given to the distribution of goods and services according to the framework established by the economic system.” - How does that make it dishonest framing?
“A socialist economy is not going to look the same as a capitalist one, neither of them will look communist, and all of them are distinct from a fascist economy, but they are all economies just the same.” - Fascism is a political ideology, not an economic theory. Fascism adopts Syndicalism and Corporatism. So while its not completely socialism, it does lean towards it.
“And it is at this point that I don't think I actually need to go further, because if you are making such fundamental mistakes in the bedrock of your argument, I feel that at best you are fundamentally misinformed, and at worst being deliberately dishonest.” - In this case its neither. You cannot call him misinformed if your trying to misdefine the words, whether accidental or intentional.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge
1. I never said the law doesn't mean anything. If I thought that than my only reason to follow it would solely be to avoid consequences. I said it was not relevant to the argument unless u were to put in an application that reinforces ur point that came before and without a direct connection to Roe v. Wade.
2. The motives are not the point. I don't care if ur killing an innocent human being for a self righteous purpose or to simply steal their wallet. It doesn't change what their doing. Also the irony is that Nazis and Slave owners used the same rationality that Pro abortion people use now. That it is not a full human being because of x versus y.
3. Yep I do because regardless if they do or not, they know the risk coming in. Not to even mention that 46% abortion mothers don't even use contraceptions and some of the 54% that do don't use them consistent or correctly.
4. It is not a matter of consequence but rather that she should not be allowed the separate act of killing an innocent being for happened previously when it is not at fault. But in the case of them being careless then sure. :)
5. That right to life means that it (As an innocent human being) cannot be taken without consequence. Again by all means if ur better alternative is to punish women after the abortion then that would be acceptable but not ideal since like I said before, the goal of pro life is to prevent abortion not simply punish for the act.
6. Yep
7. I do. Obviously problems and issues would follow suit like any change to things would. When slavery became outlawed, problems followed with that as well. Doesn't mean the action should not had been taken. Also those problems that would follow would be allowed to be worked out since the core issue would be set behind us once when abortion is made illegal. Because once when that safety net is gone then people will have no choice but to work out the other issues and problems.
8. Again I have made my stance clear. I'm not going to say that everything with the logic is perfect, but it does have better consistency than what the pro choice argument can say. I mean for goodness sake, pro choice members can't even agree when the cutoff point should be.
9. Saying a Spectrum of whether one truly, fully knows or not does not mean jack. Ever heard the saying better safe than sorry? It would be the same as driving in a dark night and while driving u see a figure ahead that u think might be a person. Do u A, Slow/stop the car to make sure u know for sure, or B keep driving and risk hitting what may or may not be ahead of u. If ur answer is A then then its the same principle is the arguments against the spectrum.
10. I mean for the most part, yes. Obviously an adult can vote and has certain rights inherent to adults but as far as a right to live. Yes I consider them equal.
My opinion did change once. It is why I'm here. I use to live with that mentality especially while depressed on why anyone should care about a being that didn't know it was living, or could feel pain, or could think. That thought changed when I realized both the logic gaps that it had since many of those things could be applied to adults but also because I realized that without conception, there would be no consistent line to draw on a life being protected. That the line of when killing is ok would continue to expand as it already has. This is why states still allow third trimester abortions at request and how people like the governor of Virginia can propose some of the things he does. Because the consistent line without conception would be lost. I mean we are left with the options with following clear and objective biology on when a life starts and in turn when it should be protected since protection of the innocence is a basic principle of a civilized society, or we can follow a line that is made up for convenience and if we choose that line, nothing stops it from changing whenever its no longer convenient. "Oh I can kill a Fetus at 15 weeks? Why not 16 weeks, why not 20? Why not the day it is being delivered, well even though its out, the umbilical cord isn't cut and I decided I don't like the way my baby looks. Can I kill it now?" Bud I am saying this with as much honesty I can. I am trying hard to get u to understand this because there was a time that I was u in terms of arguments. And it's because I became naive, ignorant, and resentful on the world and myself. I lost care in anyone or anything. My siblings becoming parents, my cousin becoming a mother, a rape victim I know that gave birth despite the father being a terrible person gave me clarity. At the end of the day just as I won't quit on giving the Fetus the chance to live out a life of passion, joy, challenge, hardship, love, hate, determination, struggle, and at the end content and peace, After abortion is illegal, I am not going to give up on the mothers that now have those challenges to face, the challenges society would have to face. Life can be such a fragile thing when it is not protected. It can be easy to devalue. I know it because I've been through it. But trust me. Just as we were granted that chance to live out a life, something that we now believe belongs to us, it should be no different for the next generation after that. At the end of the day, the true test of character is the actions u take during hardship. And the value of someone's life should only be determined by that someone and no one else.
P.S Sorry this was so long, I just wanted u to understand why I make the stands I do and that despite all the gaps in logic I find. That I do sympathize even with those that oppose. That I understand their reasoning because I once had it. I want to say at the very least that I thank you for actually providing me a good set of arguments that helped reminded me of the reasons why I have this stance. And because of that, u are simultaneously the best and worst opponent I have ever faced. And I at the very least owe u my highest respect for that.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@WeaslyTwin “Oh, so you just don't know what the definition of a liberal is. Got it.” -
Liberalism Definition: Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom.
Lincoln was not a free market advocate as he favor heavy protectionist policies.
Lincoln did advocate degrees of civil liberties but that was only in promotion of specific agendas. Those liberties certainly did not count for much when he suspended the protections of citizens to promote anti war media, and conscripted northern citizens into the army who were against changing the nature of the war about slavery.
“The basic of idea of liberalism is that individual liberty is best achieved through equality before the law. That pretty much requires a high degree of government power and oversight.” - According to who? Liberties can’t exactly be promoted if it is being highly circumvented by the central government at its convenience. Not to mention the basic fundamental of liberalism at least in the classic sense was to limit government power as much as humanly possible. That certainly would not align with Lincoln’s use of executive power to force his way.
“If you don't what the 'social contract' is then you don't know what liberalism.” - I never said I didn’t know what the social contract was. But it is not a direct excuse to just get away with anything. And it still does not change the nature of government limitations. Lincoln did not limit central government power, he expanded it. Now to be fair, I am not necessarily saying he was in the wrong for this. But I think it is important not to frame his actions as something it wasn’t.
“And racist or not, which he wasn't.” - Wanting to deport African Americans back to Africa to set up as an American colony would certainly say otherwise. And Lincoln has stated many times that the administrative jobs of the United States still belong to be operated by the white man. Now to be fair, some of this can be taken with a grain of salt given it was during some of his campaigns. But I don’t think it would be honest to slap all of it out of hand as a lie either.
“He still most certainly believed in equality before the law.” - I mean sort of, as mentioned Lincoln did want people held to the same standard but it was still held in a concept of a central authority and while in principle he may had wanted to lead the US gradually into a more equal direction, he was not as unconditional about it as people try to give him credit for. And we have to account for a slippery slope logic, are we to say that not being a racist automatically makes one a liberal? That would certainly broaden the rather specific criterias.
“John Locke, you know the Father of Liberalism, was pretty sexist. Still a liberal.” - I mean, perhaps in theory but not in action. You do make a point about Locke considering even the “Father of Liberalism” was pretty hypocritical of what he preached and wrote. I don’t believe that words or actions alone determine someone’s ideological stance. It is a bit of both.
“And please list specific examples of individual freedoms he suppressed to achieve his war gains.” - I mean forced conscription, suspending the rights to publishing anti war press, the arrest of said people who made such press without a trial, there’s plenty. Now as I mentioned, I am not even saying this is abnormal as it was pretty typical for a wartime President to enact these policies. But I think it would be difficult to say you value individual liberties for self determination, when everything in your administration has proven the contrary.
"Lincoln was a progressive constitutionalist and believed that the continuation of Slavery was contradictory to the promise of the US constitution." And none of that is contradictory to liberalist beliefs.” - But it does not automatically make it that either like you are essentially trying to claim. Being anti slavery does not automatically make one a liberal, they are two separate issues. Especially since the opposition of slavery had more reasons than just “The Black man is equal.” In fact many anti slaveries did not believe that at all and still promoted that the White man was superior. Many northerners opposed slavery because of its cruelty, the political divide it was causing, or the fact that it was viewed as an economically outdated policy. Now I am not saying that Lincoln automatically had those same stances. But the evidence makes clear that it wasn’t as Black and White of Lincoln viewed the Blacks the same. He didn’t, at least not for most of his life and most of the war. There is a possibility that Lincoln may have had a sincere change of heart by the war’s end, and hell much of the evidence even points to that. Sadly we won’t know for certain since his life was taken not long after. If Lincoln was a liberal, he was sure as hell a hypocritical one, and from my pov never proritized that stances over his nationalism, anti slavery stance, and moving the concept of American nationhood closer to what he felt it needed to be for the nation to live, and he showed he was willing to weaponize the government, economy, and politics in whatever direction to get what he wanted. And I am not saying all of it was bad mind you. The truth was he was right about most of his points. But the thing was history showed what his priorities were in the concept of America. If he was liberal at all, which I don’t conclude he was. He was a nationalist and constitutionalist first and a liberal second.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@herbertwilkshire4265 "The definitions of socialism communism and capitalism are all wrong
People think that socialism means collective ownership of the means of production aka industry, but that's wrong." - Most definitions say otherwise bud.
"That's actually called social capitalism." - Um, no it isn't. - "any capitalist system that is structured with the ideology of liberty, equality, and justice." - None of that even so much as mentions collective ownership.
"Socialism is a place on the economic egalitarianism spectrum that is further left than capitalism aka individualism... And it's on the left of center of said spectrum, and it's further right than communism which is full or nearly total economic egalitarianism aka a non profit economy." - Ok and that is not applicable. Egalitarianism is not inherent. As people like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao were far from egalitarians. Socialism is where the means of production is collectively owned and or controlled.
"And people think that communism is synonymous with totalitarianism and use the word interchangeably with it, incorrectly. Totalitarianism
"And people think that the definition of capitalism is private ownership of means of production aka industry but this is also wrong. Capitalism means to profit." - No it doesn't. Profit is only an attribute, not a definition. - Capitalism: "an economic system in which private actors own and control property in accord with their interests" - Profits is most often for their interests but is not the only. Not to mention capitalism does call for private control.
"If the state owns all industry and is profiting this is called state capitalism." - No that is socialism. Because the state is collectivising the means of production. Also its oxymoronic. Capitalism calls for private control of the means of production. A state is not private, it is public. If everything is publicly owned, that is not capitalism by definition.
"If the state owns industry and it's non profit then this is communism or socialism." - Except everything is profit. Profit: "a financial gain, especially the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something." - If they are able to gain more than the cost to make it, then that would generate a profit. But hey, I guess ur definition would explain why socialists countries tend to always bankrupt themselves lol.
"If privates own industry and it's non profit this is still socialism or communism." - No it is not. Because private individuals controlling the means of production is not communal control. It is not the means of production being controlled by the community which was the point of socialism since its inception.
"If privates own industry and it's for profit then this is capitalism." - Yes. If they own and control it for their interest. But other than this u r completely trying to redefine words, short answer. No.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@melpug4817 You do not need to apologize for an honest mistake my friend. We all make them. I understand your point, but the simple basis is we will never know that for certain and ultimately it should never be our choice to make on whether or not the child's life is worth living or is worth risking. That choice must only fall on the one truly making those choices for themselves. The one which like I had, should have a chance in life. A life in which they can form relationships, love, hate, challenge, learn, grow, mature, form views, and bring purpose to their existence.
2
-
@slaterslater5944 "The dictionary says, unequivocably, that Nazism was right wing." - Labelling is not a definition. And nowhere does the Oxford definition call them right wing. See ur lying here now.
"Why do you ignore clear definitions that disagree with you," - Because its not in the definition. And as I mentioned before calling something "Right Wing" or "Left Wing" means nothing is you don't even have a consistent metric on what measures left and right on the spectrum.
ambiguous
"And will you ever muster the honesty and courage to explain what "the sought of all political revolution" was supposed to mean," - Already did.
"and why you invented that gibberish quote?" - Because I didn't invent it.
Here is another quote if u can't believe Engels wanted a revolution.
"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?"
Engels, On Authority, (1872)
Or this one, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution.
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"
Marx & Engels, Communist Manifesto (1848)
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikemcmike6427 I never claimed it was anything that made me an ultra hard working person buddy. But clearly you haven’t considered that during the early pandemic, most jobs were not that well available anyways. Not to mention the unemployment rates.
Again, you can claim whatever u want on ur life. You have nothing to show for it. And no, mowing lawns, babysitting, doing a Santa costume job, being an aid in a business’ special events. Those are freelancing. And when you judge based on someone freelancing, I find it rather funny as it highlights a rather pathetic elitist mentality.
Also the fact you couldn’t tell I was mocking your lack of patience and treat it like i think you care about me has left me flabbergasted at how delusional you can be. 😂
Buddy. You make no sense. At this point we’re not even talking about the history topic. If you have such a better life, good for you buddy. But surely that would mean you don’t need to waste time in mine. So since it’s clear that nothing productive is coming from this thread anymore, this is where I’m gonna end thing. When you’re ready to talk like an actual 25 year old with a degree and not a caveman who only knows the language of insults, let me know. Until then, fair well.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mikemcmike6427 I already told you before that I would kindly accept whatever evidence you wish to send. Hell I even offered you a method to do it. Yet you still refuse at every turn. It is not my fault you don't bother to pay attention to what you read. So let me get this straight, because I did not want to make working a wage job a factor in my life during my high school years, that makes me lazy. Sure buddy, sure. Of course It is funny considering that considering you spend nearly all day just launching personal attacks on me, your job must leave you a shit ton of time to just sit and write comments on Youtube. LOL.
I still don't seem to grasp how it is apparently being lazy for working freelance and not committing to a singular job. Also no, the burden of proof has always been on you since you made the beginning assertion of TIK's video being wrong, but the only argument you have consistently made is how it goes against a consensus, despite the fact TIK dedicated a very part of his video to address that counter. Gee, it is almost like you don't pay attention. You are a pathetic waste of time Mike. Even most who agree with your views on TIK's video don't respect you. You spend your days trying to see how much you can degrade me as if it makes any difference. I am sure your political science class taught you that you don't win debates by trying to bully your opponent into submission. Maybe you weren't paying attention in class either, assuming you even took it.
Now for the 7th time, since you clearly are very poor at paying attention, I will ask again. What disqualifies Hitler from being a socialist to you?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@slaterslater5944 ".. And that's why free market Capitalism isn't the only form, just the most extreme" - And why would you think socialism wouldn't share such different forms either?
"(and totally unworkable) one." - Not even close.
"Notice that only one of the FOUR definitions I have posted so far mentions "free market", but they all mention private owners. You wouldn't just be trying to find something to wriggle round your discredited claim, as I predicted, would you?" - You asked for definitions and considering that you tried to play the numbers game I might as well point out that plenty of definitions contradict your narrative.
"None of it has been disproved"
"Hmm.. Let's recap on what you asserted :
"It's a good thing capitalism's definition specifically highlights that it is about control, not ownership "
From the Oxford dictionary :
"an economic system in which a country's businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by *private owners*. " - And you seriously think that the economy was controlled by private owners when the state was imposing wage control, price control, resource control, price commissars, state land reforms, quotas, and redistribution of businesses that were either Jewish or those that refused to do the government's mandates? Yeah bullshit.
"Nothing has been disproved, eh?
Righto!" - It is right, glad you agree.
2
-
@slaterslater5944 "My" narrative that Capitalism is private ownership and control of the means of production? - That required owners to control said means of production.
"But even without one, I have disproven the assertion that "capitalism's definition specifically highlights that it is about control, not ownership " by posting FOUR definitions that do no such thing! can you post ONE definition that does?" - Multiple.
Oxford Definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Merriam Webster Definition: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Investopedia comparison between Capitalism and Socialism: Capitalism is based on individual initiative and favors market mechanisms over government intervention, while socialism is based on government planning and limitations on private control of resources.
Vocabulary Website Definition: Capitalism is an economic system featuring the private ownership of business wealth and the free and unfettered operation of trade markets
Yourdictionary website Definition: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled mostly by private individuals and businesses for profit, thus what is produced and the quantities thereof are determined by consumer demand and competition.
Oxford Learning Dictionary Definition: an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government.
Thought Co Article Definition: Capitalism is an economic system that emerged in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries in which private companies, rather than the state, control trade and industry. Capitalism is organized around the concept of capital (the ownership and control of the means of production by those who employ workers to produce goods and services). In practical terms, this creates an economy built on the competition between private businesses that seek to make a profit and grow.
Need I go on?
"Why are you arguing from an
arbitrary definition of Capitalism that you have invented?" - I invented? Even though these are definitions founded in sources. So no, I did not invent it.
"This is classic TIK Argumentum Ad Humpty Dumptum." - No, it really isn't.
"That is irrelevant to the fact that your assertion:
"It's a good thing capitalism's definition specifically highlights that it is about control, not ownership" - That makes it very much relevant. If the state is controlling the economy then it is obviously not being controlled by private owners, private sector, or free market. Trying to assert that a free market would fall under the same camp as Hitler's National Socialism is a slippery slope at best and down right delusional at worst. The trade and industry must be controlled by private owners for it to be capitalism. Not by a state.
2
-
@slaterslater5944 "EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE DEFINITIONS YOU POSTED MENTION PRIVATE OWNERSHIP!" - And nowhere did I say they didn't. But you are cherrypicking part of the definition that highlights the importance of them controlling it.
"Merriam Webster Definition: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods,"
"vocabulary Website Definition: Capitalism is an economic system featuring the private ownership "
"Yourdictionary website Definition: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled mostly by private individuals Oxford Learning Dictionary Definition: an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government. "
Which of those definitions do you imagine supports your assertion that:
"capitalism's definition specifically highlights that it is about control, not ownership "'
Didn't you notice the words "private" and "owner" in EVERY SINGLE DEFINITION YOU POSTED?
What on earth is wrong with you? 🤣😅🤣🤣" - You. That is what is wrong, considering that yet again you are cherry picking part of the definition when you are missing the bigger picture. Nowhere did I say that it did not involve private owners. What I said is being a private owner alone does not make something capitalism when you don't control the property. Notice how all of them either directly state or imply the importance of control.
Merriam - "that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."
Investopedia - " Capitalism is based on individual initiative and favors market mechanisms over government intervention"
Oxford - "are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Yourdictionary - are owned and controlled mostly by private individuals and businesses for profit,
Co Article - which private companies, rather than the state, control trade and industry.
Do I need to seriously go on? Or are you going to use that brain of yours? Do I seriously need to break this down to you like your 11? Or are you ready to stop playing ignorant?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "No, the UK is not more socialist now than it was in, say 1948." - I did not compare it to 1948.
"You have immense difficulty in actually identifying, let alone understanding, Socialism, don't you?" - Once again, if the state is controlling the means of production. If it is dictating the actions of what a private individual can do with his own means of production, that isn't capitalism.
"In an anarcho socialist society the government wouldn't be seizing anything. Because it wouldn't exist.
And who on earth would buy from someone who was profiteering?" - People that would rather get it straight away than having to waste time making it themselves. Thats part of trading. Or are you naive enough to really believe that everyone would just be ok with sharing without even one individual becoming materialistic or wanting to get a financial gain out of what he or she makes?
"You wouldn't need a state to stop people from doing something it would make no sense to do." - Except for many it would make sense to do. Again, you are just naive in thinking that everyone is just going to willfully share everything they make. They won't. And because your making this kind of argument, I now know why you are arguing against the Nazis being socialist, likely because you are a socialist yourself or at the very least a socialist sympathizer. Again I can throw that logic right back, why would I make something that gains me and my family nothing, why would I just give it away rather than attempt to get a want or need on my end out of the product someone else wants.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@akindelebankole8080 "I see that you don't think all pregnancies are absolutely and fully accepted by every pregnant woman, and I read that you would consider a different approach in the case of a rape." - No, I only said rape is a different discussion. Because too many times I see Pro Choices try to use whataboutism on, "What if it was rape?" But trying to use a statistical anomaly to justify a majority case, it is being intellectually dishonest.
"By giving special consideration to rape situation, your pro life view becomes inconsistent. exception
"If you do agree, then you will understand why I said there has to be a price to pay for stopping pregnant women from having abortions. In the case of the rapist, for example, the punishment should be death penalty. Don't you agree that in order for the religious or irreligious zealot to stop a raped woman from aborting the child of her rapist, the rapist must be executed as a lesson ." - I would argue that a rapist should be castrated or killed, yes. That we can agree on.
"and deterrence to other would be rapists? Note, once you sanction killing the rapists, what does that do to your pro life stance?" - Nothing, the key to a pro life stance is to defend innocent human beings. Convicted rapists and murderers have been part of the stance. Of course as mentioned, I think castration would be a better punishment for rapists than the death penalty. The only time I have been in favor of the death penalty is when the convict has taken the life of another through murder or when an act of extreme cruelty is exercised.
"However, is you choose not to impose death penalty on the rapists, what lesson are you teaching the child of rape about how to be with women in future?" - Once again, castration is an option.
"Would it not be teaching the child that rape is okay?" - Ignoring that years of jail is an option and castration I would argue no. Even if we ruled out the death penalty which I don't completely.
2
-
@tasfa10 "Your response reeks of not having read even wikipedia's page on Socialism," - The definition is right in front of you. If u have something to add from a source, be my guest.
"for God's sake. Unions have nothing to do with socialism??" - No, because again unions are tied to worker and class theory which are Marxist concepts.
"Expropriating people on the basis of their race is socialism??" - Yes, its doing the same actions for the same goal, only on racial theory instead of class theory. Hitler believed Race was the core of the issue while Marx subscribed to class.
"Workers have nothing to do with socialism"??" - Nope.
"Pre-Marxist socialism doesn't even mention workers"???" - No, feel free to show otherwise.
"Holy shit!! You seem to be squinting really really hard so that everything is such a blur that you can't, first of all, read anything at all and so that the single fact that both Nazis and the USSR had the state control things makes them politically equal." - Elaborate?
Also socialism is clearly defined as state or community controlled. The more the state has control over the economy, the more socialist it is.
"You seem to think socialism means the state has control of some things and some people get expropriated." - Some things? Wage control, price controls, resource control, price commissars, worker battalions, state land reform, qoutas, autarchy, and stealing from the Jews I would hardly consider some.
"Yes, if you squint like that, then I guess socialists and nazis look the same to you. Socialism means common ownership of the means of production and no, that is nothing exclusive to Marx, and whatever variations there are within socialism have nothing to do with that definition but rather with methodology and organization, such as how it's achieved." - Which Hitler was already aiming for through elimination of private property rights and state control over the market.
"For example, the state's control over the economy, which you seem to think to be the end goal of communism, is in fact but a tool for common ownership, but not at all essencial to communism." - This is not discussing the communist pipe dream. Socialism and Communism are of 2 complete different stages.
"Anarcho-communists, for example, defend both common ownership and state abolition. The state isn't even essential for communism." - Um yes it is, otherwise how else do u expect communal or collective ownership to be enforced? You really want to delude yourself into thinking everyone would just do it willingly?
"At the same time, the state can control the economy without being accountable to the people and therefore still being nothing like socialism." - A lack of Accountability by the state is the inevitable end point of socialism. Hence why it mentions state or community. Because if the state is appointed by the community then its support later on, especially in practice does not matter.
"Especially when your state control of the economy really means privatization with state meddling." - Again, Tik already covers the privitation myth. As for state meddling, the degree of it determines how socialist it is. the more control the state has, the more socialist it is.
"So no, the state having a strong grip is not what socialism means" - Read definitions bud. Saying an apple is not a fruit does not mean it isn't a fruit.
"and in Nazi Germany there was nothing like common ownership, even if there was state ownership it wouldn't necessarily make it common ownership," - It does not need common, its collective ownership. Communal ownership and state ownership literally share meaning since the state is the body of the political community.
"and they were actually doing the opposite with the privatizations." - They took away businesses from those who disobeyed and reprivatized them to those loyal to the party and state. The state does not need to nationalize the means of production if its already working for them.
"There was NOTHING socialist about Nazi Germany. And my point stands: even if you want to claim such a stupid thing as "there's no single definition, therefore anything that calls itself socialist counts", - I never said there was never a single definition. The definition is quite clear and displayed.
"a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
"to the point that those two "socialisms" are in stark opposition other than the superficial appearance of some state control and expropriations, they belong far apart in the political spectrum." - Ok, did u forget that opposition does not automatically equal each other? Does a bear stop being a bear because it had to fight another bear for food? Does an American stop being an American within the civil war because they had to fight amongst themselves? This is something called out, the war in the east could be viewed as a socialist civil war to see which would dominate the 20th century.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
"Hitler himself, when asked by a British journalist in an interview if he was a socialist in the traditional sort of way, he expressly answered that he despised socialists and socialism, and wanted to steal the term to give it a new meaning, completely detached from its original one." - Source please?
"Hitler could not be a socialist because he not only despised left wing politics in general, that he thought was secretly manoeuvred internationally by Jews, but also because left wing parties in Germany got all the blamefor loosing WW1, even though it was clear that it was lost as Germany could not replace anymore any man or weapon lost on the battlefield." - Yes, we are aware of the stab in the back myth. That is not the point. Socialism within the 1900s was primarily loaded with Marxists, which Hitler rejected Marx believing his version of socialism to be part of a Jewish conspiracy. He thought the same of capitalism btw.
"It was sufficient an offensive by the Allied to make the whole castle go down, but he believed the "leftist plot to stab Germany in the back" anyway, as he was a former corporal in the German army and staunchly conservative.
Only this little fact is sufficient to classify him as an hardcore anti-socialist," - Except it isn't, because as noted before. He rejected Marxism. Most left wing parties at the time were primarily Marxists or parties sympathetic to Marxism, or Social democrats.
"but let's look at the facts: the philosophy of fascism and nazism is the exactly opposite of the one of socialism and communism. The society they were trying to make had the opposite kind of structure, as a fascist society is hierarchical therefore has a vertical structure, while a socialist society is not, and has an horizontal, egalitarian structure." - Have u not seen the Soviet Union or Mao's China? I doubt u could call those egalitarian.
"Some other facts:
1) Hitler suppressed the rights of minority and workers in favour of the business owners." - Which he did to expand collective or state control over the economy, not to mention many of these industrialists were needed to get Germany back as a military power. Something Hitler makes clear needed to happen.
"2) No government to this day in Germany, not even the most pro-capitalism one, did the same amount of privatisation as Hitler did." - Tik already debunks this. 02:10:18
"If he was a socialist, he would have made the opposite. That made the business owners richer and the workers poorer." - Except it didn't as noted within the section the rich were the ones carrying the majority of Taxation burdens to fund the Nazi State. Also as stated, Hitler's so called privatization was redistributing previously Jewish or opponent owned businesses and giving them to loyal party members. In totalitarianism, the party is the state and the state is the party, they are the same thing.
"3) He NEVER advocated for abolishing private property or seize the means of production and give them to the workers, he instead did the opposite." - Except he did abolish private property rights. And he never seized much because he did not have to. He isn't going to make an enemy of his own party members or industrialists already loyal and obedient to the state. They were working for him. He did however seize many businesses not only from Jews and political opponents but many smaller businesses were crushed under Nazi policy.
"He invested into the private sector with no promises of any profit in return for the only advantage of the rich and defined the German enterpreneurs as "responsible" and a vital part of the German economy." - Hmmm, maybe that was because they were preparing for a war. One that Hitler stated needs to be won in order to complete his socialism. Lebensraum was essential to fully implement socialism for Germany. As it was the only way for the economy to become self sufficient.
"Not socialism in this statement there. Instead we have capitalism." - Except we don't. Hitler using state supremacy to increase his own powerbase and understanding that maintaining the loyalty of 13 corporations is easier than 100s if not thousands of smaller companies, is not capitalism. Its applying policy to achieve Germany's self sufficiency. You only have to look as far as Junkers on what happened to his airplane factory for refusing to obey the state mandates.
"And the private owned company had massive amount of freedom, they could do almost whatever they wanted, they were not under the strict rule of thumb of Hitler like were normal people instead." - Hahahahha, no. They did not have many freedom, the only ones that did were major party members. Or r u forgetting that the Soviets also benefited party elites under Stalin?
"4) As soon as he seized power, he sent all the opposition, socialist leftist first, in concentration camps, as Dachau was built in 1933." - ALL OPPOSITION!!! Capitalists were often also sent there as well, especially when they did not cooperate with the states grip on the economy. The collective, the state, was absolutely in control of the economy.
"5) He reversed the progress of society, by making policies expressly designed to re establish and reinforce the traditional genders roles in society as hard core conservatives intended them, so women at home making and caring for children and them men at work. Something that socialist parties were trying to dismantle." - U mean Marxists or Liberals? People that Hitler already rejected? Also u forget that traditional roles were not just meant for the sake of it. His entire ideology is a race theory. Part of maintaining the race is producing children.
"Now, I could go on for hours, but I do not have this much time." - Sure u do.
"Why he called himself a socialist? To fool the masses, to gain power, to win the elections and then seize it all for himself." - And why did he make himself look appealing to industrialists? To fool them, gain power, and use them to prevent Germany's economy from imploding. Mutual gain is not the same as ideological alignment. It was a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality.
"An extremely anti socialist thing to do as socialism is democratic by nature." - Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim un Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, etc. U really think those were democratic either? So tell me, were they not "Real Socialists" either?
"But his backers, the industrials, the nobility and the military, staunchly anti left and anti democracy too, knew he wasn't and backed him." - Again, they knew he wasn't Marxist. But what they needed was protection against the Marxists, something Hitler offered them pretty quickly to gain a further advantage in the elections and to gain an early boost in Germany's economic buildup. However, u seem to forget how quickly many of these industrialists and nobles turned on Hitler within 1944 and 45 as soon as they realized that his policies were not to their benefit.
"People that believe Hitler was a socialist by anti measure, believes in 80 years old long debunked re interpretation if history, made to make the far right look good by blaming the left for the crimes Nazis were responsible for." - Proof to said claim?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Why do we have: Seatbelt laws, drinking age, clothes being mandatory, statutory rape, driving age, smoking age, drug age, drug consumption limits, prohibition of sex in public, legal age marriage, age of consent, etc. Category 2: invalid.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikemcmike6427 Ok for the 10th time I addressed this. Hitler tried to take power in a traditional revolutionary manner during the 20s. It didn't work. After that, he reworked his strategy and realized that taking power by force would only backfire on the Nazis. To hit this point at home even further, the Nazis did not want Germany to suffer the same civil war which caused massive economic damage like had happened in Russia. So as mentioned, they took power the democratic root and needed the major industrialists to help back him in order to take power.
"Amazing how Hitler wasn’t afraid to get rid of, jail, kill or scare away millions of Jewish" - You mean the main target of his ideology?
"and left wing scientists," - You mean social democrats and Marxists? Already explained that before. Social Democrats became an obstacle to his rise to power and the Marxists were viewed to Hitler as a Jewish controlled movement.
"academics," - Like?
"business owners and vital other contributors to German society." - Yes, thanks for agreeing that they were willing to target plenty of business owners. However, there were only so many the Nazis could target before the economic consequences were coming into play. Hell many have argued they were already suffering those consequences. Considering how fragile the Nazi economy already was, Hitler knew that further pointlessly targeting key economic individuals such as the lead industrialists would only leave Germany far more likely to fall into political and economic instability. Something that he could not afford to do at the time when preparing for the conquest of the east. And as we went over, Hitler already scared the right wing parties to back down. This is also to mention that, because the Nazis had a lot of the larger ones backing them either through mutually gain or fear of the Nazis. Hitler targeting say some of the smaller businesses or academics with a democratic or marxist bias, were safer people to target than the people Hitler built his entire rearminant to be dependent on.
All political parties were banned, not just the ones on the left. The only difference was, after the left wing parties were dealt with for open resistance. The right wing parties (for the most part) were not willing to take the same risk.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 "Advocating towards equality in an environment of outright racism is the most that can be expected from a politician that needs the votes of racists to win. And Lincoln absolutely did advocate towards equality." - No he wasn't. Lincoln's sentiment throughout most of his career was that the administrative leadership of society fell under the white man. Lincoln still believed whites to be superior as a whole, the difference was he had more pity towards the blacks than oppression or hate. Hence why he wanted to do as mentioned above. Now yes, it can be argued he had a change of heart later on. But his beliefs was not rooted on some egalitarian desire. It was rooted in sympathy.
"The Constitution had been in effect for ~72 years at the start of the war. Slavery had been around a bit longer. Guess which institution the conservatives of the day were more interested in maintaining?" - Time is hardly a factor in to this. Slavery was around longer but in the context of what Lincoln was hoping to preserve, his conservatism was rooted in defending and keeping the USA together and the constitution upheld. Being conservative on one issue does not make it the same as all. The south was willing to do what was convenient for their economic advantage, hence why their political positions kept flip flopping during the 19th century.
"They're still not. Although it does require threading a philosophical needle. Not relevant to this conversation though, since neither the Republicans nor the Democrats of the time were liberal conservatives." - By what definition? The south believed they were just that, that is was conserving a liberty to own slaves free from government interference. You have to remember liberalism back then does not mean the same thing it means today.
"The fact that you put 'Republican' across from 'liberal' in that sentence indicates a problem with your thinking. Do you need me to tell you what it is?" - I am using a general example, to be better specific, progressive authoritarians would be a better use. I'll admit my word choice was off, but I am using examples to make the point.
"individual liberties, equality, and progress. Which is what liberalism is about." - No it isn't. Classic liberalism which was the used term back then meant advocating for more free markets, more individual liberties under the rule of law, and less government interference. As far as the plantation owner was concerned, their liberty was to own slaves. I am not saying it is agreeable, but to act as if Lincoln in any form was a liberal would be to ignore the racist rhetoric he himself had, the standing institutions he was trying to preserve, and the amount of times he was willing to use the government to achieve his goals even at the cost of individual liberties.
Also no, progress =/= liberalism. Nice try.
"You're having enough difficulty understanding the words were already using, I don't have the time to explain why Lincoln wasn't an authoritarian. Also, authoritarianism is not contrary to either conservatism or liberalism, so that's not even relevant." - Authoritarian is the opposite of liberalism bud, especially in the classical sense. You can't exactly be promoting individual liberties if the government is constantly circle venting that. Like it or not, Lincoln was not a liberal. He was anti slavery, progressive, constitutionalist, nationalist. The Civil War was primarily a pro vs anti slavery rhetoric, to the south it didn't matter if they had to use "progression" or "conservatism" to achieve that end. By the same token, Lincoln was willing to end slavery due to its existence violating the promise the constitution made. The fact you don't understand shows that your motive is to try to equate the modern left to Lincoln and the modern right to the Confederates, something that is not only intellectually dishonest, but considering how many times the Dems have been willing to flip flop their positions to maintain control, is frankly laughable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “By any standard under general acceptance, either now or at the time.” - Not really, again Lincoln would not match a classic liberal by any metric. And I am not listing the reasons a third time only for you to ignore them.
“No, the policies of conservatives is different in different countries, because the dominant traditions they're prioritizing are different. Conservatism, the unifying core ideology, is the same.” - No it isn’t. Because the basis of saying conservatism in a broad term is trying to preserve traditions, cultures, or political status quoes is to ignore that those are fundamentally different depending both on the nation one exists within and what time frame that nation is in. Which is why conservative ideologies can and often have clashed. Given that what is trying to be preserved is entirely different.
"At least not beyond his desire to preserve the US constitution in its entirely"
“He had no such desire. He in fact wanted to amend the Constitution in various ways. And, you know, did. He wanted to preserve the Union. Not the same thing.” - Lincoln himself would say otherwise.
“But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.”
Lincoln’s desire for amendments were purely to achieve his anti slavery aims which as mentioned, he opposed because he believed its continue existence was not only a standing violation of the constitution’s base promise. But also because he knew that it was creating a political divide so fierce that it would eventually tear the nation apart. Something he was right about.
"Such as Lincoln." Except he meets the definition of liberal you provided, so is a liberal by both my definition and yours.” - Once again no he didn’t, and you have not so much as addressed any of the counter I presented that have disproven the notion or at the very least present themselves as contrary to your claim good sir. You continuous dismiss the evidence I have provided that has proven counter to such notion, both through his words and actions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ilonaharutyunyan511 "Im not "attempting to dehumanize' anything. A fetus is considered human at about 16 weeks from conception."
Really? Which source? Why at 16 weeks? What constitutes it being considered a human being at 16 weeks?
"A fetus feels some sort of pain at about 20 weeks." Ok. in a decent amount of states, abortion is legal after 20 weeks.
"An average women gets an abortion at 4-8 weeks."
IDC what the average date is, that is not the point. The fact is, it is allowed after that point. What kind of argument is that? That would be like making stealing legal and saying "oh the average american does not steal." the fact it is even allowed is a problem.
"So no, I'm not "dehumanizing' a fetus. To me, there is no such thing as " pro-life'. There is pro-birth."
Hey buddy, use the dictionary, they pretty much mean the same thing. Also u do not get to decide what there is and no such thing as for a word with a dictionary meaning.
"here are about 140 million orphans worldwide."
We don't control the world, we only control the USA. So do not try to use extreme arguments that aren't relevant within our own governing policies.
"If you care that much, go save a life from there instead of harassing women for making a mistake."
First off, I plan to adopt when I get older, but even if I didn't, u are now relying on a strawman argument. By ur logic, ur saying I am now obligated to take care of someone just because I am defending their right to live? Let me ask you when u see someone injured about to die, if u run them to the hospital and they recover there, r u now responsible to feed him, cloth him, and give him a place to live? Do I have to pay money to keep someone from being shot? Also you clearly don't know what harassment is given that I never recalled working to change law due to scientific fact was ever considered harassment. Debate is not harassment. Us beating a woman for making the wrong choice would be harassment. Following a woman after a debate to reprimand her would be harassment. Do research before commenting.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 I mean an employee can buy a product to sell or even freelance. Just about anyone can be a private owner with just a little time and investment. And do I need to put the definition of bourgeoisie again. It’s funny how u pretty much reject any definition that doesn’t come out of Marx’s mouth. Almost like ur a Marxist ur self.
And of course u will bring up things that are not only false to my original point but irrelevant to the topic point we are discussing now. Almost like u don’t have any productive arguments left to say and have instead just been trying to wait for a mistake on my end to pull a gotcha.
It’s not my fault nor my problem if ur an Anti Cap. It’s amazing how this has now become about Marxism when the initial argument was just suppose to be about Hitler and his Socialism. At this point, it’s become a waste of time. Because ur line of thinking has pretty much been set to label every major socialist system or prominent leaders of socialism in history as “Not Real Socialists.” So despite the definition clearly saying otherwise capitalism must mean state totalitarianism right? Never mind when the state aka the class collective, racial collective, or national collective control nearly every aspect of the economy. Never mind when your property can be taken from you for simply not making what the all knowing and all powerful state wants you to make, never mind that private ownership and control effectively doesn’t exist. No it must be capitalism, because a few elites benefit off of the corruption. Because really, if National Socialism isn’t socialism, and the Soviet Union wasn’t socialism and people like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, Castro, and Ho Chi must not be “Real Socialists.” Then you’ve lost any tangible ground to even define socialism at all. And it’s funny when I call out socialism’s bullshit, people like u will try to pull the “Not Real Socialism” argument yet any time a capitalist does wrong or violates capitalism’s principles. It must be because capitalism is evil instead of the argument I could use, because if we are being fair we can just say it’s not “Real Capitalism.” 😂
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "to sell" eh? Is this like your "private market" nonsense from earlier?" - How is it nonsense exactly?
"Yes, if you buy and sell a COMMODITY, you own it for a short period of time, well done. Now, what does that have to do with your claim that an employee owns and controls a means of production. What means of production are they, then? You have confused a commodity with means of production,because you are a dimwit." - No, because a means of production is one method of trade and as I showed you before.
Capitalism DEF: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Controlling a trade is just as impactful to capitalism as controlling a production. And once again, it does not change that an employee can become a private owner. Nothing stops them from say opening their own business if there is a good or service that people want.
"And a dishonest one at that." - Coming from the one who cannot even read capitalism's definition.
" you’re entire book has pretty much been libel against it."
"You are functionally illiterate, aren't you?" - Oh wow, how dare I make a spell error.
"What book are you talking about?
Where are the Bourgeoisie libeled? Is this going to be like your hilarious claim that Engels was advocating for revolution when he said the causes of revolution are to be found in changes in material conditions?" - No. And I am not repeating the same quotes a third time. At this point, it is on you to search it. Because I am not going to dig up the research a 5th time with you. At this point, you are wasting my time. Because its clear no matter what I say, you won't see the comparisons or the writings on the wall. You would rather remain plugged into the Matrix rather than seeing the world for what it is with what socialism is. And once again, this was not even supposed to be about Marxism. You are the one that made it about Marxism. Its not my fault that the economic arguments used against National Socialism so happens to also be able to apply against Marxism.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "No, I'm repeating YOUR statement that "an employee is not a private owner"." - Not inherently, does not mean that they do not have the opportunity to become one, nor does it mean they have to stop being an employee to do so. You can be employed in one establishment and be the owner of another.
"Why are you so dishonest?" - Why are you? You are the one trying to put words in my mouth. Also care to stop being a bot?
"Nowhere did I say they cannot become an owner"
"And there you are admitting, again, that an owner and an employee are different things!" - Being two seperate things does not automatically make them mutually exclusive. So once again, an employee can be an owner and if an employee can be an owner, they can control their own means of production or trade.
"One they open themselves or inherit".
"Huh. Earlier you claimed their means of production was the ability to buy and then sell something with their wages 🤣😆🤣😆🤣. What happened to that?" - That is not a means of production. It is a trade. And as the definition already shows, one you love to ignore. Capitalism is when trade or industry is controlled by private owners for profit rather than by the state.
"So, if an employee is gifted a factory then they become an owner (and as you yourself said "an employee is not a private owner") and now own a means of production.
But it was employees that you claimed 'absolutely control their own means of production", not owners, remember?" - No I said an employee can control their own means of production, which is true.
"Why are you so dishonest?" - Why r u a bot?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950
"As I said, you simply don't know what you're talking about" - Wow, what an argument. Could say the same to u.
"and are trying to define what owning the means of production actually means." - Socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." - OWNED OR REGULATED. If the state is dictating and controlling the means of production then it does not matter whether or not the "owner" makes a profit.
Ownership: "the act, state, or right of possessing something." - So yes they possess it. But they do not control it and as highlighted here. "Ownership means that having legal title. Control means having the ability to determine use. Ownership and control generally come as part of the same package in a market-oriented capitalist economy. ... Combined ownership and control is important to the efficient allocation of resources." - In order to truly own something u need to control and to truly control it u need to own it. They go hand and hand in economic terms. The Nazi business men did not truly own the business because at any point when the government saw fit could take the property away and private property rights outlined in the Weimar constitution were suspended until further notice.
What firms were shut down for "not complying with a Nazi mandate or quota"? - Um, "Other historians dispute the Buccheim and Scherner thesis that the general absence of state coercion means there was no real threat of it. They believe that many industrialists actually did fear direct state intervention in private industries if the Nazi government's goals were not fulfilled, and that their choices were affected by this concern. Peter Hayes argues that although the Nazi regime "wished to harness business's energy and expertise" and "generally displayed flexibility in order to obtain them, usually by offering financing options that reduced the risk of producing what the regime desired", the government was nevertheless also willing to resort to direct state intervention as a "Plan B" in some cases, and these cases "left an impression on the corporate world, all the more so as government spokesmen repeatedly referred to them as replicable precedents."[70] Thus, the Nazi state did not resort to "blunt-instrument forms of coercion" because it did not need to, not because it was unwilling to do so. After 1938, "examples had been made, fear inspired, and the lessons internalized, on both sides of the business-state divide."[71] Hayes describes Nazi economic policies as a "'carrot-and-stick' or 'Skinner Box' economy" in which corporate decisions "were increasingly channeled in directions the regime desired" through a combination of "government funding and state-guaranteed profit margins" on the one hand, and a series of regulations, penalties, "the possibility of government compulsion, and the danger that refusal to cooperate could open opportunities to competitors," on the other hand. As such, he argues that "the Third Reich both bridled and spurred the profit motive."[72] Hayes concludes that "Nazi economic policies structured opportunities and thus corporate executives' choices. Did businessmen retain free will? Of course, they did. Was their autonomy intact? I think not."[73]"
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "So, in a dictatorship the state is the community? Nonsense." - Yes it is, because it is the community that enabled and appointed the state. Now yes, an abuse of power comes into play. But that is inevitable. If people vote on the dictator then the dictator is representative of them. Otherwise going by ur logic, we have never had a socialist nation because all of them end the same way. The Soviet Union was a dictatorship, Communist China was a dictatorship and in most ways still is, Vietnam was, North Korea was, Cuba was. Were they not socialist nations either then going by ur logic?
"Once again, you are blindly buying TIK's nonsense that any sort of state intervention is socialism." - I never said any, I stated any, I stated state control over the economy. Again separation of the Public and Private sector. Again, separation from a state that ensures private property rights vs one that strips it, one that has little interference in trade and distribution, vs one that completely tries to dominate it. There why the term Mixed economies were invented.
"Which is silly." - Except it isn't.
"The economy of Nazi Germany was capitalist, what with the means of production being owned by private individuals, which is pretty much the basic definition of capitalism." - Except it isn't. Its about control not ownership. Because u don't truly own something if u don't have control over it.
Capitalism Definition: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." - The Nazis interfered and near completely dictated all 3 of these fronts. So no, it was not capitalist. Even people that disagree with Nazis being socialist have come to realize that it is not capitalism either. Because Capitalism was viewed just as much of an enemy to the Nazis as Marxism. Capitalism was International Jewish Finance and it was the primary reason Hitler had a hatred of nations like the USA who he planned to fight after the Soviets as highlighted in his second book.
1
-
@LautaroJaguar "stop inventing and changing definitions to try to fit your own opinion, nobody is taking you seriously." - What defintion am I changing here?
Socialism definition: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
State Definition: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
Second State Definition for good measure: A state is a political division of a body of people that occupies a territory defined by frontiers. The state is sovereign in its territory (also referred to as jurisdiction) and has the authority to enforce a system of rules over the people living inside it.
"Read historians. Youtubers are no source of knowledge or analysis." - So by that logic, if a youtube video is made about how to do a math problem I shouldn't believe it because it is not a source of knowledge or analysis? Do u hear ur self? Youtube or the Internet in general is like any hub of information containing multiple info and multiple sources, some are right, some are wrong, and some have more credibility than others. But like I mentioned time and time again, the words of historians alone without sources, properly understanding definitions, and a lack a proper logical conclusion is half hazard at best and foolish at worst. Again if every historian said Hitler and Stalin fell in love with each other, r we suppose to believe it just because its the word of a historian? If ur answer which I hope is no, then you'll understand why trying to use historians alone is not an argument.
comparison
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Distribution and exchange. Which were also in private hands in Nazi Germany." - Except they weren't. As mentioned before, not only was the degree of state regulation higher than almost everything else, but things such as high wage and price control affected distribution. I cannot control my means of distribution and trade if the state is telling me that what price I can sell an item for. It is also controlling it when it is cutting off trade from other markets thanks to their autarchy policies. So again, it wasn't.
"Really? Well, he has redefined right wing to mean free from state interference," - Depending on the spectrum, that is true. For example a political compass is representative of how much state interference the economy has.
"equated socialism with totalitarianism," - Socialism nearly always leads to totalitarianism and you cannot have totalitarianism without socialism. Not all socialists are totalitarians but all totalitarians are socialists.
"and tried to claim that when a company has a public share offering it isn't owned by private individuals. For a start." - I will give you this one, however what he is trying to explain through that is how a group or community is controlling that company's mean of production, distribution, and trade. Not an individual. Thats why corporation domination is technically neither capitalism nor socialism. It's corporatism.
"Corporatism is a collectivist political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or "human body". - Technically, Fascist Italy would be compared to that mainly.
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "The political "spectrum" would define increasing government control as authoritarian," - Political control, yes, economic control, no.
"not left wing." - Again, economic control is further left, or more collective control to be precise.
"As I showed you in the thread you had the sense to run away from," - Which one?
"there are many libertarian/anarchist versions of socialism too." - Which I already explain anarchosocialism is an oxymoron. If there is nothing to stop someone from going and creating their own means of production to profit, that just creates anarcho capitalism.
"And as you have admitted in this thread, dictatorships cannot be said to be representative of the community." - I did not say they can't. I said they don't always. But how they rise to power is a factor in that. Also again, by that logic, Lenin and Stalin weren't socialists either.
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "A regulated capitalist economy is still capitalist." - Except it is not when regulations completely undermine a private control. Not when the threat of expropriation exists.
"Who was getting the profits from e.g Krupps?" - Profits are not relevant to either system. You are aware a socialist economy can also have people profit.
"All totalitarians are socialist"
Provably wrong." - Except its not. Totalitarianism is complete and utter control of every aspect of someone's life. "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." If not everything is aligned and or part of the state, then its not truly totalitarianism. By trying to say the Nazis were capitalists, even though Hitler hated capitalism as highlighted in his second book, comparing it to international Jewish finance, you are technically saying the Nazis were not totalitarian.
"And you don't understand corporation either. If only you'd copy and pasted the next line from Wikipedia: "Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, " - I am aware it doesn't.
Corporatism is a collectivist political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests. The term is derived from the Latin corpus, or "human body"
"the control of a state or organization by large interest groups" - There is more than one definition. Granted I am aware this section can be taken with a grain of salt slightly.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Randomyoutuber-4831 "1st point, by that logic all the blood cells, eggs, and other micro organisms in a female's body are not part of the mother's body but rather just using it as they share nutrients with her." - Ur relying on a straw man argument. Ur comparing building blocks to one's own body versus actual separate entities. A fetus exists with its own genetic code, dna strand, and own set of essential body parts. The contrast is pretty straight forward.
"2nd, alot of the anti-abortion supporters seem to cease to care what happens to children after they leave the womb, such as refusing to increase welfare spending and funding to orphanages; it's insanity, they're forcing people to have children and then take away their ability to properly care for them." - Ok there we agree, so the fix is easy, we outlaw abortion and then actually work together to fix the orphanage. But that is the thing. Both problems need to be sorted out, u cannot use one evil to justify a greater evil being committed. Now I disagree with the prospect that they r forcing anything, at the end of the day, unless the mother was raped which is an extreme minority case, then they chose the risk to get pregnant and as such need to take responsibility for it.
"third, until a fetus is fully developed it is not considered a human being." - So ur not a human being till ur 20? Again, human development does not end till then, so by ur logic, 5 year olds aren't human either. But tell u what, I'll spare u the troll comment due to the poor choice in words and instead ask when u think a fetus is fully developed. What constitutes it being fully developed?
"But I have to ask, why exactly should a mother not be allowed to kill their child? and that's not sarcasm, I'm asking that as a serious question." - Wait so r u seriously going the route that a mother should be allowed to kill her newborn, or 6 year old with no consequences? Because that is literally homocide. So if u r, then u need some help. But to answer it more logically. It is because again, it falls under homocide and murder. It is the taking of an innocent human being. do u not find anything wrong with that? In fact I'll reverse ur question. Why in any right mind, should a mother be allowed to kill her child?
1
-
@Randomyoutuber-4831 "1st point, just because it has a DNA strand does not make it a human being; sperm and eggs contain DNA strands and they are not considered to be human." - True but it does not contain a separate genetic code that can develop. Again, a Sperm and egg are only extensions of the dna and genetics of the person carrying them. A zygote on the other hand, forms its own chromosomes and contains its own unique genetic code. Also that ignores earlier points, what constitutes a human being to u?
"2nd point, and what about all the cases of unwanted pregnancies from drunken nights," - Still fault of their own
"failed birth control," - Does not work 100% and anyone using it would know this.
"or the mother simply being unfit to raise a child in the cases of drug or alcohol addiction?" - Carry to term and then taken by the government to be handed to an adoption parent.
"Why does the woman have to take responsibility in this case?" - Because she is still in fault based on the choices she made which put the child in this position. This is why fathers cannot just take off and leave without being forced into child support. Same principle. If one parent is held accountable, the other has to as well. To argue otherwise is sexist.
"Not every women, chooses to get pregnant." - True but again, with the exception of rape, they choose the risk. The same way a drunk risks his life or the lives of others when driving home.
"And even though rape is rare it is still a very valid case." - Valid, yes, but in ur case, not relevant. That is not the line ur drawing which means ur only using it as an excuse which holds no weight in this debate.
"And would you rather see orphanages overflowing with unwanted kids because around 600,000 babies are aborted every year which means 600,000 kids are going to be crammed into the foster care system each year." - I mean if that for the time being is the only other option to avoid them being killed, yes.
"3rd point, let me rephrase, a fully FORMED fetus as opposed to developed. Which is about 24 weeks into the pregnancy, after that point it is a human being and should not be aborted; by that point the mother has probably decided to keep the child or missed the opportunity to get rid of it." - Thanks for giving me a line, but ok, why 24 weeks, why not 23 or 22 or 21? What makes 24 weeks special? Also again, where I disagree is the mother made that choice well and before that point. I mean many can argue that logic at 10 or 12 weeks, I argue it at conception.
"fourth and final point, animals in the wild eat their babies all the time: bears, felines, canines, primates, and many species of rodents practice this to name a few. But you're not looking at this from a logical standpoint, you're looking at it from a moral stand point; taking an innocent life is wrong from a moral standpoint, but from a logical standpoint when a mother gives birth to a child they are accepting the responsibility of raising the child the way they see fit because that life was placed into their care, therefore if they seek to extinguish that life they should be allowed to because that life was entrusted to them by society" - Wait wait, hold on. U just said earlier u think 24 weeks should be the cut off, yet ur now advocating the murder of a child is ok because the mother is doing it? So if u got news that a mother drowned her six year old son, that would not bother u? Children are not slaves, they aren't just property u know. Also there is no logic to that, ur going back to the mid evil days in terms of logic. 21st century only succeeded logically because we upheld morals.
"I mean there have been tons of incidents of women leaving fetuses abandoned. But past all that, I never said killing was a good thing (invoking straw man again) but I said that the option should exist because that's the risk society simply has to take if they are forcing a child on a woman." - So to u, there should be no legal consequences for a mother drowning 3 of her kids? Dude if ur actually advocating that is ok, I beg u to get help. That is not things work. Again, applying ur logic would simply revert the world back to the stone ages. Also yes, society is taking a risk, we take a risk in everything we do. Does not mean they won't act against people who think to do something so monstrous. Again, I am actually concerned that u r advocating homocide to be legal. Also society ain't forcing anything. The mother does not have to keep the kid. Once when the kid is born, the mother will never have to see him or her again if she does not want to. Hell some adoption parents even cover medical bills. So again faulty logic and borderline insanity when advocating the legal killing of innocent children. Seriously u must be joking or u need to get help.
1
-
1
-
1
-
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
"It's also a philosophical term, you ignoramus." - So? Philosophy is not objective. It is pretty much just as subjective as legality. Also so what? Clearly the Nazis and Soviets disagreed with that philosophy.
"It's a strawman argument, because I wasn't making the argument of whether fetuses are human beings or not." - Ok, then ur yet to justify why killing them is ok to u?
"That is how most dictionaries define children." - Source? Give me one please?
"False. Consciousness and the ability to feel pain are not the only factors of whether somebody is a victim or not. Again, stop talking about Logic, until you actually know something about it." - Then tell me the factors that matter to u. U cannot just say that I am not using logic when I am only countering the evidence u provided. If there were other factors that mattered to u, maybe u should say what those factors are. U cannot call me ignorant, when ur not even giving me the info behind ur claim to properly counter.
"By the fact that the supreme court has ruled that fetuses aren't Constitutional persons." - Ok and? All I am saying is that it is not a fundamental right. And again, personhood doesn't mean jack. That is not an objective ground to stand on.
"Sure, but you have not demonstrated why abortion is wrong. You are just arbitrarily asserting that is wrong simply because a fetus is human." - No I hold it to the same standard as any innocent human being. Even non citizens in the country, still have rights. And still have a right to live. Killing an illegal immigrant without probable cause would still count as murder. I am simply holding them all to the same standard. Because by admitting that they are a human being, u r also indirectly stating that there is no consistency to why killing a fetus would be ok without applying the same logic against those after birth.
"Stop talking about things you have no clue about." - Such as?
"It's very clearly that murdering actual persons, is wrong. You can't say the same thing about fetuses." - Jews were not people in the Nazi government. So ur logic does not work here.
"Yes, I see that your point is a blatant and pathetic false equivalency fallacy." - U r yet to prove how it is either.
"Ignoring the definition of murder, while at the same time claiming abortion is murder, is just ignorance." - Where did I claim it as murder? Again given that murder is a legal term, it again is not the point. I am saying abortion should be classified as murder as it has nothing to defend it without condoning the deaths people that would be classified as murder.
"Jews were clearly persons in a philosophical sense." - Philosophy is subjective and not universal. The Nazis did not have to agree with that philosophy. By the logic u r using, the Nazis had every right to commit the holocaust. Again, personhood is not scientific. There is no objectivity behind it and as such holds no relevance in this context.
1
-
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
"The whole issue of abortion is philosophical...." - true, but context and objective facts to back the opinion is not.
"Not to mention, objectivity and subjectivity are both philosophical terms... LOL!" - Perhaps but they stem from the basis of fact versus opinion which are not philosophical. U r actually trying to put yourself in a position where u do not need to use facts or backing. Pathetic. And I doubt ur this stupid to know what I mean. Objective by definition means universal, it can be proven. U cannot prove or disprove a philosophy until it is put in application. And as such just remains an extension of an opinion.
"Irrelevant." - Not really, given u r trying to use a basis that is not objective or factual.
"Again, I'm not the one trying to argue that It should be illegal, that's all you, and the burden of proof is on you to substantiate that case." - Which I already provided. But u cannot just ignore the evidence without a source to counter it. That is what I am trying to say. Yes a burden of proof to the argument would fall on me, but that only means I need to start with evidence to back me. Once that is done, you have to have logic, factual info, or statistics to counter it. Otherwise, again. It is just falling under denial.
"Merriam Webster" - Child definition:
"1a: a young person especially between infancy and puberty
a play for both children and adults
b: a person not yet of the age of majority (see MAJORITY sense 2a)
Under the law she is still a child.
c: a childlike or childish person
He is a child in most business matters.
2a: a son or daughter of human parents
Do you have any children?
b: DESCENDANT
the children of Israel
3a: an unborn or recently born person
… Meghan Markle, married Prince Harry, now pregnant with child.
— Laura Simonetti
bdialect : a female infant
4: one strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs
a child of the streets
a child of nature
America has been called "the first child of the Enlightenment"
5: PRODUCT, RESULT
barbed wire … is truly a child of the plains
— W. P. Webb
6usually childe \ ˈchī(-ə)ld \, archaic : a youth of noble birth
, Dictionary.com - Child Definiition:
a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl:
books for children.
a son or daughter:
All my children are married.
a baby or infant.
a human fetus.
a childish person:
He's such a child about money.
a descendant:
a child of an ancient breed.
Yourdictionary.com - Child Definition
a human infant; baby
an unborn human offspring; fetus
a boy or girl in the period before puberty
a son or daughter; offspring
a descendant
a member of a tribe, clan, etc.: often used in pl.: children of Israel
a person like a child in interests, judgment, etc., or one regarded as immature and childish
a person identified with a specified place, time, etc.: a child of the Renaissance
a thing that springs from a specified source; product: a child of one's imagination
ARCHAIC
childe
BRIT., DIAL.
a female infant
Cambridge dictionary - Child Defenition:
a boy or girl from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age:
an eight-year-old child
As a child I didn't eat vegetables.
A small group of children waited outside the door.
Both her children are now married with children of their own.
Jan is married with three young children.
See also
brainchild
disapproving
an adult who behaves badly, like a badly behaved child:
He's such a child if he doesn't get his own way.
a child of sth
someone who has been very influenced by a particular period or situation:
Me, I'm a child of the 60s.
More examples
She had to drag her child away from the toy shop.
Her eldest child is nearly 14.
She's got four children, all under the age of five.
The children are always hungry when they get home from school.
Don't be so silly - you're acting like a child!
Thesaurus: synonyms and related words
Want to learn more?
Improve your vocabulary with English Vocabulary in Use from Cambridge.
Learn the words you need to communicate with confidence.
Idioms
be child's play
children should be seen and not heard
(great) with child
(Definition of child from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
child | INTERMEDIATE ENGLISH
child
noun [ C ]
US /tʃɑɪld/
plural children US/ˈtʃɪl·drən/
a person from the time of birth until he or she is an adult, or a son or daughter of any age:
Jan has a three-year-old child and two school-age children.
Now in their 60s, Jerome and Sally have two grown children (= adult sons or daughters).
childlike
Macmillan dictionary - Child Definition:
1
a young person from the time they are born until they are about 14 years old
The center has places for 30 children.
The movie is not suitable for young children.
He can’t understand – he’s just a child.
Synonyms and related words
-
General words for child and types of child
adolescent
a growing boy/girl
bairn
...
Explore Thesaurus
1a
ONLY BEFORE NOUNfor or about children
a child car seat
new programs to address the problem of child poverty
Synonyms and related words
+
1b
ONLY BEFORE NOUNused for showing that the person mentioned is a child
a child actor
child workers
Synonyms and related words
+
2
someone’s son or daughter of any age
All of our children are grown and married.
They’re expecting their second child in May.
Synonyms and related words
+
See also only child
3
an adult who behaves in ways that are not reasonable or sensible
Synonyms and related words
+
4
someone whose character is influenced by the main political and social attitudes of a particular period of time
child of: a selfish, materialistic child of the ’80s
- Good job sourcing ur info. Except the irony is the very sources u tried to use to defeat me. All but 2 actively work against u, and only 1 does not include a definition that can imply a fetus being included. Or did u think I would not look? Seriously. How much detail u clearly miss is actually hilarious to me.
1
-
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg "Consciousness, the ability to feel pain, violation of their will, are the main ones." - So does someone only have to have one of these factors or all 3 for them to be protected by u? Also really? For making a fuss about me stating the obvious that consciousness and pain do not work as a line u could only come up with 1 extra?
"I can when you counter me with fallacious arguments, like the one you just strawmanned me with..." - Not when u can't prove that it is a fallacy. U have not even proved it is strawman. Seriously. tell me how it is either.
"I have, many times, yet you seem to forget every time..." - U only consistently mentioned consciousness and pain which I already explained are not consistent lines. U only mentioned 3 since then. Victimhood, which again falls under the same problem as consciousness. Since ownership which also falls under the same problems as consciousness, and now violation of their will, Which regardless of the answer to my previous question in response to your third factor, is going to be easy to deconstruct as well.
“I certainly can, when you purposely use the less accurate terminology, and you keep committing the same old tired fallacious arguments over and over again.” - r u kidding me? U must be trolling at this point. The very sources u tried to use in order to prove me wrong have definitions that actively work against your argument. At that point it is just u being blind or really special. U still have not proven how my arguments are fallacious or strawman. So sure u can say it all u want, but without context to back it. U just look like a big idiot. Or a troll if u want to defend ur pride a little bit.
“What does that have to do with a fetus being a victim or not??? This is just another Red Herring argument.” -
“Victim definition: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. “
See the problem here? Because personhood again only falls under legal terms. It is not an accurate measure to determine if someone should be killed or not for the reason I already mentioned. Anyone can be denied personhood depending on the government. Does not mean that killing them is ok.
“Again, it does, because otherwise, you can't say there is a victim, and if there's no victim, you can't say it's wrong.” - So the jews can’t say what the Nazis did was wrong during the holocaust. A victim has to be a person, and jews were not people in the Nazi government. So therefore, the jews aren’t victims? Also again. U do not have to be a victim. One can simply be a recipient of a crime or form of oppression. Which would also allow them to base something as wrong.
“But that's a false equivalence fallacy. It's easy to see why killing an actual grown person is wrong, that's not the case with fetuses.” - No it isn’t. Not if you're trying to look at it from a pure logical standpoint. Again, our emotions keep us from harming others in that sense. But if u invalidate the life of an unborn human being. Then there is no consistent reasoning why killing an adult should not be allowed either. Either all humans have intrinsic value or none do. U cannot cherry pick without being discriminated against or an elitist.
“Irrelevant. Killing immigrants is taking something from somebody that they didn't want taken from them, and abortion is not.” - Once again inconsistent logic. Someone in a coma cannot object to being killed either yet they are still protected. Also by the time a fetus gains full brain activity it does have a resistance to death. It will try to defend itself.
“That standard no longer makes any sense when you apply it to fetuses.” - And why is that?
“False. I have stated the differences many many times now, you are just too dense to acknowledge it.” - differences that yet again cannot be held to standard because of the inconsistency. There is no consistent logic u can use.
“Logic.” - Show them then and be consistent without contradicting urself.
“Nonsense. The Nazi's just denied that they were persons. That has no bearing on whether they were persons or not. You have crap reasoning skills.” - Yes, because person is a legal term. So they can deny personhood. The Soviets did the same thing. Hell America did the same thing. What part of this do you not understand? Personhood is a legal term. Which means, it can be granted or denied to anyone that the governing system desires. And may I remind u that the Nazis were not held for crimes against persons but crimes against humanity. Humans!! Again, all human beings must be held to the same standard. Either all human beings have intrinsic value or none do.
“I did, you falsely equated what Nazi's thought of Jews, to what Jews actually were, which is persons.” - No they weren’t!
Person definition: “a human being regarded as an individual.”
The Nazis did not regard the Jews as individuals! They were not legally recognized as people. So in terms of the Nazi government. They were not people. This obviously changed after the war once when the Americans took over. But u see what I mean. Depending on the system. Personhood can be granted or denied by any system of power. Slaves were not regarded as people by European powers and America, Jews were not regarded as people by the Nazis, The Capitalists were not regarded as people by the Soviets. Personhood is subjective. It is a made up concept. It is a construct of the current power base. Humanity is not. Again, see the problem here?
“10th comment down” - Ok fair enough. I will admit to making a mistake there. But even so, still taking of life of an innocent human being and if abortion did become illegal, it would then be classified as murder due to the other factors of the definition.
“it's also a philosophical term, and YOU brought it up, so don't give me that crap.” - Philosophy is subjective!!! Christ almighty. Dude what part of this do u not get? There is no objectivity behind personhood or in this case murder. I admit the use of the word was an error of my own judgement however, I still stand by the other points and again if it was made illegal would be categorized as murder.
“You are just making up your own definition of murder.” - no I really am not.
Murder definition: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Abortion is premeditated killing of one human being by another. The only thing that keeps it from being murder is that it is currently legal.
“So is abortion, but that isn't stopping you from arguing against it, now does it?” - Yes, because I can use objective logic, reasoning, evidence, info, and statistics to back my points. I have not many if any contradictions to my arguments. My claim might be subjective but the backing is objective. And I can objectively state that allowing abortion when claiming that that the taking of innocent human beings is wrong is a contradiction.
“It matters not. The idea that Jews were persons, is practically universally accepted. Arguing against that, is just making yourself look foolish.” - According to what? The systems put in place nowadays? The same systems that once denied slaves personhood? Things change, yes, but again, the freeing of slaves was done out of the principle of human rights. Not people. Because again, they were not recognized as people at the time. This is the same scenario all over again. Also there is no such thing as practically universally accepted. All that translate to is that the majority agree. But here is the thing. Even if everyone agrees on something does not automatically make it true. Because again, objective claims have to be proven.
“False” - No it is quite true. U are still condoning innocent human beings to die. U r still basing it that no consequence or redemption should be done against those that take the lives of innocence. And again other forms of arguments u tried to use to separate them failed due to yet again a lack of consistency. This is not a hard concept to understand.
“You could say that for your entire argument against abortion. You aren't that bright, are you?” - Again, not really. Because I have actual objective backing. Again, My points still hold logic and aren’t contradictory. Consistency is part of having a good logic. Without it, u contradict yourself and make yourself a complete hypocrite. Also, that is trying so hard to strawman. Ur basically trying to go against the concept of objectivity in general. I can prove my claims with backing. Again I may not be able to say Abortion is objectively wrong. The same way genocide cannot be stated as objectively wrong because Nazis and psychos can disagree with me and have no way to factually prove one way or another. Morals cannot be proven. However, I can call out contradictions and put the objective claim that if one thinks killing human beings is wrong, then it would be contradictory to then be pro choice. Again abortion is a front to the very foundations that the USA stands on, based on the principle that all “men” (Mankind) are created equal and have unalienable rights. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Abortion is fundamentally anti life. And as such, is a contradiction to those principles. Which again will in the long run will result in no consistent logic to why killing a 30 year old man is wrong.
1
-
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg “Most of those factors.” - So 2 out of the 3? Most really does fall under being a bit subjective don’t you think? Again. Cherry Picking.
“Oh they do, only you are just pathetically trying to beat me up for those requisites, because they don't magically start at an universal and precise instant, which is just a pathetic continuation fallacy.” - Again. They aren’t consistent. I already stated why. Consciousness means that you would condone people in comas to death by the same logic, and pain is really out of line because it implies that as long as the death is not painful then it is ok. Which does not work either. Again. U r trying to yet again ignore that.
“You didn't _ask…” - I don’t have to. U made the claim. U should have the decency to explain why while u make the claim.
“By assuming those were the only 2 factors.” - I did not assume anything. I responded to what u gave me. If you had more to add, maybe you should have done it the first time. This is a debate, not a game of poker.
“They actually are consistent when applied to 1st and 2 term fetuses, but again, you are pathetically committing a continuation fallacy to squeeze out of it.” - Again, no they really are not. Again I have already explained why consciousness and pain on their own are not enough and even if you were to combine the 2, there would still be those you would have to condone to death to be consistent with your own logic. And now since u mentioned it. Am I now to assume that ur against third trimester abortion?
“There is no problem with consciousness. You are just trying to fallaciously make there seem like there is one…” - I already explained over and over why consciousness failed? Am I to assume that u condone those in comas to death? Or those with severe brain damage? If not then u r being hypocritical to ur own logic.
“Without committing more logical fallacies? LOL!” - U r yet to prove why they are fallacies. Back ur claims like u actually have a brain, please.
“No, they don't. The first definitions given are the most widely used, and you are pathetically appealing to the much lesser used, obscure definitions, which just shows you are cherry picking.” - They are in the very sources you tried to use!!!!! How is that Cherry Picking? I literally quoted all the definitions included. All of them!!!! If anything ur the one Cherry picking because u r trying to ignore info from your very own sources!!! Have u seriously had an apple fall that far from the tree?
“Looking up those terms, explains how those are bad reasoning.” - Which I did and they worked for my logic, and even your own sources work for my logic. So I would hardly consider that bad reasoning when u cannot even consistently use sources that do not help my argument.
“Right, fetuses aren't that.” - Because again, personhood is a legal term. Anyone can be granted or denied it depending on the nation. I do understand how is it so difficult for you to understand. How many times must I copy and paste definitions and concepts before you understand that?
“No, personhood is also a philosophical term.” - Which again is irrelevant. It is again subjective! It is again, non universal or factual! What part of that can u not get through your thick skull?!! Look I try to keep cool through most of my debates but when I have to repeat the same debunk over and over and over again. It starts to get on my nerves. Seriously. U must have a really bad memory if u keep repeating already debunked arguments.
“Subjective.” - Ok then ur perfectly fine with Jews and slaves being killed? They were not people either.
“Again, the onus is on you, to demonstrate that it is not okay... What part of 'burden of proof', isn't your small brain understanding?” - Which I already explained. Yet u seem to dumb to see it. There has to be consitency with logic. Otherwise societies are doomed to fall or corrupt themselves. So again. I stated this before. There is not one consistent logic u can use to defend abortion without condoning the same logic against those after birth. That is my problem here and I have explained time and time again. Also again. I have already shown my proof and backing, yet u continue not to. And the few times u did provide sources, they worked against u. Seriously, if my brain is small, urs must be the size of a dime then. Because at least I can actually look through my sources to make sure that they are not actively going against my points. Unlike u. Idiot.
“Again, strawman argument, as I'm not claiming personhood is based on what a particular government defines persons... Dam, you are dense…” - No? But u r trying to define it through a philosophy that cannot be proven and no one has an obligation to agree to. So no not really. Again ur literally resorting to, “I get to decide what is and isn’t a person.” Sorry kiddo. Life does not work that way.
“Again, you don't know jack about Logic.” - Really, coming from someone who tries to objectify personhood and has sources that contradicts his own logic. And I’m the dense one. Yeah u keep telling urself that kiddo.
“Emotions are not objective.” - Exactly. Thank u. Which is why I am saying u cannot hold them as a standard. From an emotional standpoint. It is a lot easier to kill an unborn fetus who cannot even be seen than a baby looking at you straight in the eyes yet logically, they are more a less the same.
“I'm not doing that, so that's another strawman argument.” - Yes u r. Ur entire argument stems from that. U admitted to the Fetus being a human being yet still argue for the ability to kill it despite the logic not being consistent and again taken at a pure technical note would target groups outside said Fetus. That ain’t strawman. That is the simple truth. A Truth u keep denying.
“There is, when you are committing continuum fallacies…” - “Wow I am going to keep calling my opponents arguments fallacies without so much of explaining why or providing counter logic.” What an amazing debater u r. U make it look so easy. Just keep saying no ur wrong without explaining why. What a revolution. Joking aside, Can you actually explain your reason then for why killing adults should not be allowed with the logic u used to condone killing unborn children?
“Unwarranted assertion. Value is subjective.” - Then you're being elitist. If you're going to assert to me one human being is intrinsically worth more than the other over factors beyond their control, that that is you being an elitist and frankly using the same kind of logic that allowed men like Hitler to come to power. Yes, value is subjective. To the individual. But a value that holds consistent logic is objectively going to fall under one of those 2 categories. The universe does not choose favorites.
1
-
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg “Nonsense.” - Again not really. I already provided the reasoning as to why. If your stupid ass wants to deny it, that is your problem. Anyway congratulations, you have wasted my time. You know for how aggressive you were in the comment section on the video. I was really hoping that you could at least provide something new and thought provoking. I could not have been more disappointed. I honestly feel like I lost brain cells through this and I got bored with a debate. Something I never thought would happen. Even people dumber than u have more to offer as at least they can provide different arguments when their previously one fails. Even if they are all equally stupid, at least it gives me some entertainment in thinking of my next way to humiliate them. And those smarter than you actually provide well constructed arguments that try to be new or original that actually can be thought provoking and I would seriously have to work to create counters. But u r the worst of both worlds. Ur too stupid to take seriously and have any ounce of respect for, but not stupid enough to be entertained by you. At the end of the day, this debate has bored me. As u repeatly misused your own info, the little info u provided anyway, repeat already debunked arguments instead of using new ones, constantly made claims without backing or explaining them. And even had the launcuary to call me ignorant or dense when you haven’t sourced info or built actual objective and logical counters. Literally it has fallen down a paradox. And I can only debunk your limited arguments so much before I get tired of it. In the event that you actually come up with a new, original, well constructed, and sourced argument. Then by all means I will look forward to continuing this debate. Otherwise don’t bother wasting your time responding because I am not going to let you waste mine. If u do not respond, I will take it as your failure to come up with any real logical counters and claim my victory. So best of luck to you. I hope you can learn better debate skills because if not, you are going to do a shitty job at swaying undecided people. I used to be one of those people. Here is a little secret. I used to be Pro Choice. But then I saw the logical gaps. The gaps u keep putting in the surface that caused me to change my mind. So thanks for reassuring me of my choice.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gliiitched "yet what if the state was controlled by private interests," - You mean a government elite? Something that happened in socialist nations as well?
"as it is in the case of modern bourgeois democracy? The U.S. government, which is a puppet to capitalist interests," - Depends on the area.
"has a draft, which forces you to fight if the bourgeoisie wants you to." - Which ironically has almost never actually been used, kinda making your argument void.
"Starvation is so rare in the U.S. and the imperial core because a famine is bad for labor markets, and it will definitely turn people's suspicions toward capitalism." - It's a shame socialist nations don't have similar reservations.
"It is not in the bourgeoisie's interests to starve the very same people who make them rich." - It is basic common sense, not to let them starve. So let me get your logic straight, capitalism is bad because it does not want people to starve because that would not benefit business owners. It is bad because it provides mutual gain?
"Saying it's ignorant to say it's bad to let people starve is a can of worms that I don't even want to get into, just please, read what you' said." - I do. The fact does not change. Someone who has the opportunity to work for money to buy food and living and chooses not to, should not be surprised when their personal starvation follows.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 But since I counted on you being idiotic on this notion again. I saved the definitions.
"Oxford Definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." -
a country's trade and industry are CONTROLLED by private owners for profit RATHER THAN BY THE STATE.
"Merriam Webster Definition: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market." - by investments that are DETERMINED BY PRIVATE DECISION, and by PRICES, PRODUCTION, AND THE DISTRIBUTION of goods that are DETERMINED mainly by competition in a FREE market.
"Investopedia comparison between Capitalism and Socialism: Capitalism is based on individual initiative and favors market mechanisms over government intervention, while socialism is based on government planning and limitations on private control of resources." - INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE and favors MARKET MECHANISMS OVER GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION.
"Vocabulary Website Definition: Capitalism is an economic system featuring the private ownership of business wealth and the free and unfettered operation of trade markets" - AND THE FREE AND UNFETTERED OPERATION of trade markets.
"Yourdictionary website Definition: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are owned and controlled mostly by private individuals and businesses for profit, thus what is produced and the quantities thereof are determined by consumer demand and competition." - ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED MOSTLY BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
"Oxford Learning Dictionary Definition: an economic system in which a country’s businesses and industry are controlled and run for profit by private owners rather than by the government. " - business and industry are CONTROLLED and RUN for profit by private owners RATHER THAN BY THE GOVERNMENT.
"Thought Co Article Definition: Capitalism is an economic system that emerged in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries in which private companies, rather than the state, control trade and industry. Capitalism is organized around the concept of capital (the ownership and control of the means of production by those who employ workers to produce goods and services). In practical terms, this creates an economy built on the competition between private businesses that seek to make a profit and grow." - PRIVATE COMPANIES, RATHER than the STATE, CONTROL trade and industry.
Need I go on? Or is your cognitive ability strong enough to read what is clearly in front of you?
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "Every single one of those definitions refutes your claim. Not ONE of them "specifically highlights it is about control, NOT ownership" - OMG, you must be blind. Either that or you are a bigger fool than I took you for. Again, they highlight specifically the importance of private owners CONTROLLING their own trade and industry and to be able to carry it out within a mostly untampered market. What you are doing is literally the equivalence of taking a flat earther, launching them into a rocket, having them revolve around the entire Earth and then after landing still claiming the Earth is fucking flat!!
"You can tell by the way they ALL mention private ownership.(But thet don't all mention control)" - All of them highlights the importance of said control. Which is why even when it does not explicitly says control, it uses words synonymous to them. Or again, highlights the importance of an untampered market which would by common sense give the control to the private owner. All of them mention private owners, because as I mentioned within basic English, it is not like there is nothing to control the industry or trade, otherwise it wouldn't exist. It highlights the importance of it however being CONTROLLED BY PRIVATE OWNERS. This is why as I mentioned hundreds of times by this point, private ownership by itself does not make capitalism. Even disregarding the definitions I provided that clearly proves my point, literally through basic logic it can't be just private ownership. Because if that alone made capitalism, then capitalism would be indistinguishable from Feudalism.
"For example:
"An economic system featuring the private ownership of businesses" - Which again would make it indsiguishable from Feudalism. This is why, as highlighted even by the definitions I used within this arguement, that capitalism is not JUST private ownership.
Do your lies and evasions even fool you?
🤣🤣😆😆🤣" - That fact you can't or refuse even read what is in right front of you means that is a question you should ask yourself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 And because you don't believe me, here is the full quote from anti duhring. "...the production and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or estates is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in man’s better insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch. The growing perception that existing social institutions are unreasonable and unjust, that reason has become unreason, and right wrong, is only proof that in the modes of production and exchange changes have silently taken place with which the social order, adapted to earlier economic conditions, is no longer in keeping. From this it also follows that the means of getting rid of the incongruities that have been brought to light must also be present, in a more or less developed condition, within the changed modes of production themselves. These means are not to be invented, spun out of the head, but discovered with the aid of the head in the existing material facts of production.[1]" - I believe you now owe me an apology effective immediately.
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "Capitalism isn't inherently anti state control." - Yes it is, by definition.
"You can't do capitalism without a state." - Firstly not true, secondly even if it was. A state existing is not the same as it being in control of the economy.
"How does "the sought of all political revolution" mean a revolution is desirable?" - No the actual quote goes like this, clearly u misread my original comment that mentions Engels desire for revolution. -
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch." - Political Revolution are to be sought. Dumbass. Damn I didn't know u couldn't read, thank God I did some digging on my previous threads otherwise I wouldn't had realized u purposely lied on what I even originally said.
"Its just gibberish. Sought is a verb, not a noun." - Are to be sought. Yes and its still a verb within the context of the quote I originally used.
"And it certainly is invented, so you're lying again." - Clear;y otherwise.
"Why did you make up a gibberish phrase and attribute it to Engels?" - Clearly u did not read the quote properly. Don't worry I laid it out again so that u could read.
"Did you even read the passage you cited?" - Anti Duhring.
"Because you certainly didn't understand it. Nowhere in that text did Engles say a revolution was desirable." - Are to be sought.
Sought DEFs:
A. attempt to find (something).
B. attempt or desire to obtain or achieve (something).
C. ask for (something) from someone.
"And he certainly didn't say "sought of all political revolution" because that is just a random jumble of words." - No once again u misread.
"social changes and political revolutions are to be sought" - That ain't random.
"Why are you so dishonest?" - Why r u considering u lied about the quote I even used. The quote even in its original inception 6 days ago had what was written above.
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch." - So answer me, why r u being dishonest?
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "I didn't say Engles didn't think a revolution was desirable." - "Neither does Engles say a revolution is desirable there." - Stop being dishonest.
"But nowhere in any of what you posted does he express such a wish." - "The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch." - How many times must the same quote be repeated to you?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LeandroVelez7 "Since historically we have never seen capitalism work without a strong state backing it there is no argument to be had that it could work without the state." - True, but the only reason that has been the case is because the concept of the state has existed before the concept of capitalism.
"There have been moments in American history, say the Gilded age, when the country maintained the most laissez faire attitude you'll find. The question is, if it worked so well before then why did the government set regulatory guidelines in the first place?Especially
"The state's role should be to protect public interests from private interests through the enactment of laws and protect the playing field from unscrupulous characters." - Which I would agree with. I wish to be clear I am not an An Cap or even a traditional capitalist. But I am not ignorant to the reality of alternate systems. However, the problem with your statement is when does the line get drawn? A state in many ways is like a gun. When it falls in the wrong hand, a AK is going to be more destructive than a handgun. As such, when the state is smaller and weaker, it is much more difficult for it to be weaponized by any interest group.
"It should simply call balls and strikes. But when we look at the role it's played, it's done more to protect private interests than not." - Both yes and no. Like I said, the state represents two extremes, on one hand, yes it can and has protected the private interest in many ways, on the other hand it has completely all but eliminated the private sector in favor of socialism or appealing to a 1% of corporate oligarchs who have rejected capitalism on the base of competition being present.
"In America, the repealing of the environmental protection act and the voting rights act are just a few examples how this is currently been done. Attacks on labor rights through state supported right to work initiatives, the weakening of labor contracts; NAFTA brought down the costs of labor and destroyed the once illustrious middle class being other examples. Etc etc.
All state endorsed and permitted." - Which is another example of the state being weaponized. This was why most ideological capitalists were against state power, as they knew it would become easy to weaponize and be used against the interests of entering firms and supply/ demand.
"The state should be a neutral character but it has repeatedly used it's power, through it's monopoly on violence and law, to protect corporate interests and private property." - And this is where you are falling under confusion, corporate interests in the context of bribery is not in favor of capitalism. It is actually anti capitalism since they are trying to use the state to suppress the entry of new capitalists and restrict free enterprise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joshuawillis602 “definition liberal:
Adjective 1. Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas
Adjective 2. Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
Noun 1. A supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.” - You are aware those two definitions contradict one another. So which are you going with?
“The north were liberals because they industrialized and progressed themselves as well as give civil liberties to black people.” - Industrialization does not equal liberalism bud, what kind of logic is that? By that logic, the Nazis were liberal for their massive increase in industry. Also many northerners were opposed to giving Blacks equal rights. You tend to confuse that being anti slavery =/= pro equal rights and that was a major contention Lincoln himself had to face. Not even Lincoln was fully in support of equal rights to Blacks at least at first, with his initial reason for wanting to free them was to ship them back to Africa and establish a US colony there since he believed integration between the races was impossible.
“The south were conservatives the exact opposite” - Firstly conservatism is not the opposite of liberalism. Authoritarianism is. The concepts of liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive. Even Lincoln himself has admitted that he and the Republicans are still founded in conservative roots.
"The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."
The key difference was the North and South had different values in what was being conserved. Ironically the south viewed themselves as more liberal given that they (At least in theory) believed to be fighting for a more limited government, promoting more power to the states than federal government with greater individual liberties towards its citizens and less economic regulation.
“and were ignorant people stuck in the past and using human beings as property.” - True, and you won’t see me argue with that. But the North also had past values being clinged to. Primarily related to the US Constitution. It was a different breed of conservative values that clashed, as well as different breeds of liberalism and progressivism. Where you see a war of Northern Liberalism vs Southern Conservatism, I see a fundamental competition of American Nationhood within politics, economics, and social values. And those concepts were rooted on both sides based on what was willing to be preserved vs what was willing to be sacrificed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sakurasaku3408 "I thought you didnt know. Please come back after having many different experiences in your life ( please wait ,at least till you get your third job or marriage for example or come back to me when you become 45 years old or so ). " - Hahahahahahahahahaha, what does that have to do with Abortion?
"1,I dont want to debate or argue with someone who is into games and manga.( especially if you are older than college student )" - 2 things, one I am 19, secondly that is hypocritical, u want me to be older with some experiences and then u say I am too old. Make up ur mind.
"2, I dont want to debate or argue with someone who is much younger ,having no serious experiences or without education ( not talking about high school or college )." - Um where else would u get education during college years? Also again contradiction, how can I be too old and too young? Make up ur mind. Also I do not care if u want to argue or not, the points are valid. The points and facts are what matter, not the person saying them. Leave ur dumb identity politics out of it.
"3, If I do , I would chose a person who has high education , high intelligent and has experiences." - so basically that makes me 2/3 of what u ideally want. Um that seems pretty reasonable. Also again, part of the debate is to learn the other perspective. How am I suppose to sympathize or even understand ur logic if u let ur ego make u believe that u r beyond discussion and debate?
"4, It wont be fair to you ." - Sure it will. If I don't cut for someone highly intelligent, education, or with experience, then I should not be difficult to beat. Yet u r the one running from the debate.
"with Love, take care and have a wonderful new week ." - u too, just actually partake in discussion. It helps us both out. Understanding the other side is going to be impossible unless debates happen to where we can learn from each other our outlooks.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Wesley Heartland also again since when did I say a woman’s rights disappear. By that logic any pregnant woman should just be allowed to be killed with no punishment. I value innocent human beings equally in terms of my morals. Whether male or female, black or white, gay or straight , religious or atheist, or rich and poor. Every human being who has done no wrong should not be punished for someone else’s mistakes. In 99% of cases a mother consented to sex, she consented to the risk that she might end up pregnant and it’s like I said before. I could not care less about what she does to her self as long as it does not infringe on the lives of others. Abortion infringes on the life of that baby by ending it’s existence, by taking away its chance to live, grow, love, learn, and make a difference. No one should ever take that away from another human being without consequence or a damn good reason which 99% of abortions don’t. The only ones that should kill are those who are prepared to be killed.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Not the same thing as controlling the means of production, kid." - Probably older than u r, I would suggest not going there. Also how is that not the same? And u forget that both distribution and trade are factors
"You admit they were in private ownership, for the profit of private entities.
What's your definition of capitalism again?" - "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
Controlled, not owned. As I mentioned before, if you do not control something, you do not truly own it, and vise versa. If they cannot control their own means of production, distribution, and trade. That is not capitalism. The Nazis controlling prices is not capitalism, the Nazis expropriating the Jews and any who oppose them is not capitalism. The Nazis redistributing expropriated businesses to party members is not capitalism, the Nazis setting up autarchy and cutting off most trade is not capitalism. None of that is private control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Nope, the Nazi state did not represent the community. What did the Nazis do to a large chunk of the community? That's right, they put them in concentration camps and gas Chambers." - You mean the Jews? Hmmm what did Lenin and Stalin do to a large chunk of their community, oh yes, kill them for accusations of treason, send them to gulags, starve them out? Hmm, I guess by your logic, they were not socialists either, hmmm? What about Mao who was the second largest mass murderer in human history?
"Also, who profited at e.g. Krupps?" - Are you quite done repeating a question that I have already answered and explained why it is not relevant? Again, I can throw the same thing back at you. Lenin and Stalin did much of the things Hitler did as well, so by your logic, were they not socialists either then? "They weren't real socialists." That is what your argument is devolving into.
"Oh, and Hitler wasn't voted in by the people, he was appointed." - By government members who were elected by the people, 1932 election, the Nazi party already gained up to 37.27% of the total votes in the Reichstag. The government specifically appointed Hitler because of the amount of support he had gained in Germany, being far higher than both the Social Democrats and over double the amount of votes for the Communist Party. In fact it gained more votes than any other single party in Germany during that election. So the Nazis represented the community as a whole a lot more than any other party did in Germany.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "The state decides what the individual can do in e.g. Singapore,too .
Are they not capitalist now?" - If we are referring to economically, then not 100%. It likely would lean more toward capitalism but is technically a mixed economy.
"When would it make sense to pay more for a good than you have to, kid?" - Who would say you would automatically pay more? Do u not understand basic economics, have you been smoking socialism weed these days? Also define have to, if someone else is making the product for you and is only asking for a small price for it, many would take that over going through making it themselves.
"I don't think everyone is willfully going to share what they make, but that is irrelevant." - Except it is relevant. Because if they aren't going to willfully do it, then who is going to make them? If no one makes them, then they all would control their own means of production, distribution, and trade which would effectively make anarcho capitalism.
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "So you agree the Nazis did not represent the community, good.
Can you stop asserting it now, do you think?" - Where did I say that? I said that your claims of them not representing them would be in the same vain of the Marxists not representing them either. So at that point your just admitting that socialists are hypocrites.
"No, you haven't said who profited at Krupps, but I'll give you another chance - who profited at Krupps?" - I answered this above, this is not even relevant as I explained before. Profit does not = control of means of production, distribution, and trade. You can still profit without owning something.
"And yes, as I was, Hitler was not voted in. Were you being dishonest or ignorant when you claimed he was?" - Did you not read the above comment? I did not know I was dealing with a blind man. Over 37.27% of total German votes went to the National Socialists. Making it the most voted for party in isolation. Hitler was appointed by the elected administration precisely because of the support Hitler gained. Which once again is far more to Hitler's credit than someone like Lenin who had to do a violent revolution or Stalin who gained power through a Cue. So again, by your logic Lenin and Stalin were not socialists either. Right? What about Mao then? North Korea? Vietnam? Cuba, were they not socialists either? If your argument devolves into everytime socialism fails its not real socialism, you lost all ground to your argument.
So I will ask one more fucking time, what makes the actions of Hitler any different than that of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao? What makes them socialists, but not Hitler when they did nearly the same things? Answer that now, or we are done. It amazes how you socialists take so much righteousness in your own ignorance, how you are quick to ignore things that undermine your arguments.
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "If we are referring to economically"
"Of course we are. We're discussing the economy. Wherein the means of production are owned by private individuals,for profit. I.e. capitalism." - Controlled not owned, but go on.
"Not 100%"
"I'm sure there's one or two state owned entities, but the economy is still overwhelmingly capitalist and it makes little sense to characterise it as anything other. You are confusing free market with capitalism." -
"capitalism requires a free market to be 100%. Capitalism is private control over the means of production and trade. The state controlling that is contradictory of capitalism, hence mixed economies. A free market and capitalism are more a less one and the same.
"who would say you would automatically pay more"
"Uhhh... Socialists?" - Right and I am just going to take their word for it?
"do you not understand basic economics?"
"Do you not understand how basic Socialism addresses that point of basic economics? Or just unaware?
In which case, what credibility do to have in identifying whether anyone was a socialist or not?" - It is made quite obvious with your connotation. Now more than ever since your pretty quick to defend it, or act like Anarcho socialism is some utopian like thing even though its a walking contradiction.
"If the workers' co-op and the private owner produce a non-fungible product I need or want for 5 dollars, and the private owner for 6, what does basic economics predict I will do?" - Ok, if the private owner sells it for 4 dollars or even 4.99, then what? They buy from the capitalist, and not every product is non fungible. If I make my own farm and sell my food cheaper than the worker coop, who do you think most are going to buy from? If I offer a higher wage to people that work for me, then what happens? That is the contradiction. Allowing that would inevitably lead to competition between private markets, ultimately making it capitalism. Only thing that would stop that would be artificial barriers which would require a state.
"Finally, you need to learn the difference between advocating something and describing it. You clearly don't have much of a clue what Socialism actually is. Or capitalism, given that you can't identify the even stronger role the state has there. On reflection, anarcho-capitalism is FAR more a contradiction in terms than even anarcho-socialism, late alone anarcho-communism .." - Um no it is not. Because capitalism being individual control does not require a state for such individual control. I do not require a state to trade my piece of bread with someone who has a bag of coal that I want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Nope, that's not MY answer. And it's not for "random reason". - It doesn't matter. It might as well be with what ur saying. and u act as if no one would reject the system outright. People absolutely would, especially when it wouldn't seem to benefit them anymore, at least not as much as owning their own means of production would.
"You'd know why of you actually bothered to educate yourself on any of these subjects you keep sounding off about.
I mean, you didn't not even understand what a capitalist is." - Wow, so I don't understand the definition I clearly outlined to u? How do u not get this, if I make my own means of production, control my own means of production, and own my means of production for the sake of my interests. That makes me by definition a capitalist.
"Just like you didn't understand what bourgeoisie or corporatism meant." - U mean Marx's definition. The actual definition of Bourgeoisie was correct when I laid it out to u. Also how long r u going to be on about that? Jesus christ man, that was over 100 comments ago.
"the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes.
"the rise of the bourgeoisie at the end of the eighteenth century"
(in Marxist contexts) the capitalist class who own most of society's wealth and means of production.
"the conflict of interest between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat"
"Corporatism is a collectivist[1] political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, business, scientific, or guild associations, on the basis of their common interests." - Definitions are right here bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Nope, a worker's coop is a worker's coop.
What's the difference if it only has one worker instead of two?" - Because that is not a coop. You can't have a coop with yourself. You are an individual a private owner. If I freelance, I control my own means of production.
"You are either missing the point or being deliberately obtuse. The full value just means all the money/goods gained from exchanging the product.
The raw amount may be subjective, but the proportion of the raw amount that goes to the worker most certainly isn't." - Ok and as mentioned before, if someone makes all their own money through their own products they produce themselves, they would not need a worker's coop? The reason why employee systems in capitalism exist is because of good and services being provided in exchange for the payment. But often the business owner is using his own equipment and is financially risking far more.
"Bingo! Of course, you WONT get all the money working for a company under capitalism." - Because a company is hiring you for a task or service. If I work at a restaurant, I am not risking my equipment nor my investments, nor even a complete standard of living. An owner has far more to risk, and more to pay for, so of course they are going to want more out of it. Not to mention none of the products within those are mine, I am only providing a service for them. If I say make a sandwich with ingredients that belong to someone else, that doesn't make it my sandwich, instead I am payed for the effort of making it.
"So, you need there to be enough workers' coops around first so that you have the option of working for a place that will give you the full value of your labour." - Or someone can just start their own business. The value of their labor is subjective because that is based on a supply and demand factor similar to consumers. A good airplane pilot is going to have far greater demand and lower supply, meaning they will be paid more than the average person that works at a Mcdonalds. If they feel unsatisfied with their current payment or conditions, they can attempt to alter the conditions with their owner, however the result is very much going to depend on how much value the owner sees in u in keeping u around.
If someone wishes to dictate their means of production or "gain the full fruits of their labor" then they can open their own business and become an owner/capitalist. At that point, they can risk their own items, their own investments, etc.
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "If someone wishes to ... "gain the full fruits of their labour then they can open their own business"
"Ah, so the airline pilot should just go and start their own airline, should they?" - If they can afford to do so, yes. Or they can go to a different airline company that is willing to pay them more or provide more favorable hours. However much of the condition of that is depended on just how much they are needed.
"Because a business, by definition, has to exploit its workers to profit (according to the labour theory of value)." - Ok according to a labor theory of value, but have you considered just how wrong that concept is? By its logic whatever u provide, good or service is only worth as much as the effort it took to make it. However this is objectively false within a market. If I for instance spend an entire day working on an art piece made of mud, by the labor theory of value's logic, I should make a lot of money off of it. But I don't, why? Because I cannot find someone who would rather spend their money on my mud work than someone who took 2 hours to fix their phone. It does me no good to put a lot of effort and labor into something that nobody else wants. Just like for the consumer, producers have their own supply and demand in accordance with how much the work or good is worth to them. Am I worth giving a raise by $2? Is the Lawn Mower guy worth paying $40 for his service rather than doing it myself? There is no objective answer, the value comes down to what the opposite party in the transaction can afford and what both they and I the producer have value in my work for.
"Socialism is workers controlling the means of production." - Except it isn't. Socialism is not inherent to the worker. It is about Communal or Collective control. Marxism is about the worker. Now variants of socialism can make it about the worker, but others do not even mention it.
"If you have two workers, and two means of production, each of which is controlled by one of the workers, how is that not the workers controlling the means of production?" - Because Socialism is not about the workers. Capitalism calls for the private owner or individual to control their own means of production. By ur logic, literally any production would automatically be socialism since the owner works at his own business. What kind of logic is that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "How is a worker owning the means of production NOT a worker owning the means of production?" - Because as I mentioned before, Marx did not include owners of means of production.
"Karl Marx defined the working class or proletariat as individuals who sell their labour power for wages and who do not own the means of production. He argued that they were responsible for creating the wealth of a society." - Who do not own the means of production. Because guess what, if he did include those that owned the means of production, it would completely undermine the point of his ideology since it would create a loophole.
"This is hilarious" - Except it isn't. Think, if I own and control my own means of production and trade, that makes me a capitalist. Now Marx is advocating against capitalism because of its exploitation of the working class, right? If the capitalists were included in the working class, then there is no separate classes, the owners/capitalists would technically still count as workers, which means there would be no reason to throw a revolution to give the working class the ownership of the means of production.
"Pre Marx socialism had nothing to do with the workers"
Then why does the definition mention the means of production? (Another Marxist term!) - U can ask the people that wrote it. Unfortunately that is an aspect of the definition they do often get wrong when in reality it would just be referring to the economy in general. However when u combine the means or production, distribution, and trade. That does pretty much make up an entire economy within industry.
"How would it make every current business a worker's coop, when in a worker's coop the reward is shared between those who work there?!" - Again because if u are arguing that a free lancer/ capitalist who is in control of their own means of production would be a coop then by that logic, everything would be a coop.
"Capitalists..make the majority of their income from the ownership of assets and capital"
"A worker who operates their own means of production is making their income from the work they do, not the assets they own." - Really so u think it does not require assets to make their product? Also it specifically states, assets and capital.
Capital Definition: "the sum of financial assets required to produce the goods or services it offers to its customers."
Assets Def: a useful or valuable thing, person, or quality.
A person can very much be considered an asset.
"So by your own definition they're CLEARLY not capitalist." - Um no, because as I mentioned before, a person can be considered an asset. So is the equipment they make use of. If I am a Lawn Mowing guy for instance. Do u really think I am going to make money without owning or making use of a lawn mower?
"I'll admit you didn't redefine it, you just picked a definition that means the opposite of what you hoped it would.
You've lost it completely. now." - Except I didn't. As I mentioned before, a person can be considered an asset. That is part of the reason an employee is complimented as an asset for the company. A big help. Now while assets mainly refer to items, it can include people as well. Same goes for capital. I would assume u know the concept of human capital.
"The socioeconomic group consisting of people who are employed in manual or industrial work"
...And there you go not having a clue about what Marx meant by class or workers again.
Oh dear. Why don't you try actually reading Marx instead of making idiotic and plainly false assertions about his theories?" - Such as? The definitions are right there man.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Tried to say state Capitalism was an actual thing when it isn't"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
You were saying? - And did you bother to look into the origin? State capitalism was literally created in an attempt to disassociate failed versions of socialism or state control from their socialism theory and to try to blame capitalism for its existence.
“Perhaps the earliest critique of the Soviet Union as state capitalist was formulated by the Russian anarchists as documented in Paul Avrich's work on Russian anarchism.[45]
The Russian anarchists' claim would become standard in anarchist works. Of the Soviet Union, the prominent anarchist Emma Goldman wrote an article from 1935 titled "There Is No Communism in Russia" in which she argued:
Such a condition of affairs may be called state capitalism, but it would be fantastic to consider it in any sense Communistic [...] Soviet Russia, it must now be obvious, is an absolute despotism politically and the crassest form of state capitalism economically.”
Another example - “When speaking about Marxism, Murray Bookchin said the following:
Marxism, in fact, becomes ideology. It is assimilated by the most advanced forms of state capitalist movement — notably Russia. By an incredible irony of history, Marxian 'socialism' turns out to be in large part the very state capitalism that Marx failed to anticipate in the dialectic of capitalism. The proletariat, instead of developing into a revolutionary class within the womb of capitalism, turns out to be an organ within the body of bourgeois society [...] Lenin sensed this and described 'socialism' as 'nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people'. This is an extraordinary statement if one thinks out its implications, and a mouthful of contradictions”
And another - “Another early analysis of the Soviet Union as state capitalist came from various groups advocating left communism. One major tendency of the 1918 Russian communist left criticised the re-employment of authoritarian capitalist relations and methods of production. As Valerian Osinsky in particular argued, "one-man management" (rather than the democratic factory committees workers had established and Lenin abolished)[54] and the other impositions of capitalist discipline would stifle the active participation of workers in the organisation of production. Taylorism converted workers into the appendages of machines and piece work imposed individualist rather than collective rewards in production so instilling petty bourgeois values into workers. In sum, these measures were seen as the re-transformation of proletarians within production from collective subject back into the atomised objects of capital. The working class, it was argued, had to participate consciously in economic as well as political administration. In 1918, this tendency within the left communists emphasized that the problem with capitalist production was that it treated workers as objects. Its transcendence lay in the workers' conscious creativity and participation, which is reminiscent of Marx's critique of alienation.”
Neo Trotskyists - “In neo-Trotskyist theory, such an alliance was rejected as being based either on a false strategy of popular fronts, or on political opportunism, said to be incompatible either with a permanent revolution or with the principle of independent working class political action.
The state in Soviet-type societies was redefined by the neo-Trotskyists as being also state-monopoly capitalist.”
Mainland China was viewed as this as well. However, even a simple glance at the definitions would make clear that the term “State Capitalism” is oxymoronic in its nature.
Capitalism DEF: “an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.”
State Capitalism DEF: “a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.”
Ok, did the last definition not literally just say that the control cannot be by the state? It would have to be controlled by private owners or individuals. So that obviously does not work.
State Socialism DEF: “a political system in which the state has control of industries and services.” - Control of industry and production are synonyms to one another. State Socialism and State Capitalism literally mean the same thing. However as noted before capitalism in terms of economic control is anti state control.
Socialism DEF: “a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
State DEF: “a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.”
Community Definition: “a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.”
A nation is a community, a state is a community. Community control over the economy literally is the same thing as state control over the economy. State capitalism literally is just another word of state socialism or just socialism in general.
"The workers would already be in control"
“Are most people a) Freelancers who control their own means of production or b) workers who sell their labour to an employer who controls the means of production?” - Most are b, but you're missing the point. Even an owner who hires workers can still be seen as a worker himself. Again, they still have to get reports, check numbers, hire and fire people, and make decisions. That is still work. So as I mentioned before. If private owners were included in the working class, it would completely undermine Marxism as an ideology.
“How can I provide counter sources that for example show Marx DIDNT say "the last capitalist we hang will be the one who sold us the rope"?!” - No I am asking for counter sources of what he did say then. U keep trying to deny Marx hating capitalism but show no evidence to support that.
“You make a claim about what you imagine Marx write or thought, the you support it, pal. That's how debate works.” -
“And where have I defended Socialism, exactly?” - really? Dude u literally tried to deny Anarcho socialism being oxymoronic, tried to say capitalism exploits workers, and have been pretty keen on implying market socialism would be a good thing.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Such as? Roads and other infrastructure." - So how does a road in Los Vegas benefit me in the east coast?
"Healthcare." - I Don't use it.
"Unemployment insurance." - Again, what if one does not need to use it?
"Defence." - True
"The fire service." - I will partially give that.
"The postal service" - Ignoring internet and online mailing, ntm Amazon.
"You pay other people's welfare becuae YOU might need it one day." - Key being MIGHT. However as mentioned before, that still takes away ur money for something that likely won't even benefit you personally.
"And would you prefer to see the unfortunate starve to death? How inhuman are you?" - I never said I preferred that. I explained how taxes technically isn't allowing u to get the full value of labor either. Whether or not it is justified is irrelevant to the argument. This is the point ur missing. Just as the government takes part money for its purposes, so to does a business owner to help the business. Whether that be for getting new equipment, having emergency budget, upgrading to better tools, hire more employees, expand new products. All of that holds purpose. And do u know what the key difference is, working for a business is voluntary, taxes is not. If a worker is dissatisfied with his or her payment for his or her work. They can ask for a raise, find a higher paying job, or start their own business. They have an escape. However, there is not escaping taxes. The worst a business can do is fire you, or maybe sue you for a contract violation. The worst the state can do is send men in black suits to take you away.
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "You'll need the roads in Las Vegas when you go to Las Vegas." - If I go to Los Vegas. But what if I never do? Then what?
"In the meantime, you'll need the roads that are around you and all the infrastructure that goes with them." - Ok in my area, however my area is not the other side of the country.
"But what you still don't get is that taxes are no more you "not getting the full value of your labour" than having to pay for water is." - Um yes it is, because purchasing of anything such as that is a willful transaction, not something forced upon you. Taxes is the principle of benefit after the threat. Because even if I made a convincing argument that I would not need anything that taxes paid for, say I owned my own roads, had private security, etc. It would not matter, it would come down to pay it OR ELSE.
"It's a transaction." - Not a willful one. And I would argue something u have no choice in is far more exploitive than anything a private owner can impose going by ur logic.
"If you can't see the difference between that and being exploited by an employer for their profit, it can't be explained to you." - So ur telling me u do believe people are being exploited? LOL. Yet denied any sympathies towards socialism.
"Working for a business is voluntary,"
Not really. And being exploited definitely isn't." - Really, who is pointing a gun at your head saying you have to work there? Who is punishing you for quitting and seeking a different job?
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "So obviously you do benefit from taxation." - Depends on what thing it is used for.
"Yet, it is a transaction. So it's not you not getting the full value of your labour." - Hardly, its a transaction in the same way paying an extortionist is a transaction. Paying not to be arrested is hardly worthy of being considered one, especially when once again, u have no choice but to pay it. If u don't pay taxes, u r made a criminal.
"And is in no way comparable to profit that an owner pockets." - Like the government does not pocket some of our own tax money? Its plenty comparable. The only part of it not comparable is a business I can walk away from, taxes I can't.
"You keep saying "by your logic" when it's clear you have no idea what logic means, yet alone what I have stated implies." - Really now, because again, if the owners are "exploiting my labor" so too would be the state when they tax. U can try to argue all u want about how it "benefits" me. But as I mentioned before, some of these things hell a decent amount of these things aren't even being used by me. Do I use a road in New Jersey? No, Do I rely on National Healthcare? No, etc. These things are not for my benefit but the benefit of the state itself and those that are actually affected by those investments. The same way an owner is going to use his money to invest in his business, to grow it, to get better equipment, to hire more employees, etc.
"By my (and everyone else's) logic a person is exploited when they create excess value that the boss takes as profit." - Clearly not, otherwise capitalism wouldn't still be existed, would it? Providing labor service is just that, a service. You get paid to do a job.
"That's what exploitation means." - the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work." - How exactly is it unfair when both parties consented to the arrangement? When both benefit off of the deal, and when you know in advance what kind of work and payment u get?
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "Have you ever had a job?" - Multiple.
"Being exploited is unavoidable,given that the owner will always be getting profit that comes from the excess value of your labour." - The owner gets profit because he owns the company and product. I am providing a service to his means of production in exchange for payment. Technically speaking, if the owner is exploiting me, I would also be exploiting them through making money off their equipment, their company, their transactions with customers. And like I said before, if I at any point feel that the arrangement is unfair to me, I can walk out. No one is pointing a gun saying I can't.
However since we are already on this topic,
DEF: "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work." - So when the state takes money off of me for my work in order to provide or make something I do not even want, and they get to benefit for it, how is that not by definition exploitation? Especially when unlike working for a private business I literally cannot walk away. I have no choice, you going to say when you literally have no choice in is being fair? If I quit a business then the arrangement is done, and I can walk away and find a new job. If I refuse to pay taxes, guess what, property gets taken from me, and then if I still don't pay, I get arrested, stripped of my rights, and thrown in prison. That by definition is exploitation, its also extortion.
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 “The state is not exploiting you because they do not make a profit from your labour.” - Except they do make money off of your work. Your confusing exploitation for profiting. Profits are not exploitation and exploitation are not profits.
“Getting arrested and thrown in prison meets no definition of exploitation ever accepted.” - Your missing the point, I never said getting arrested was exploitation. I stated that the state exploitation of the people’s wealth cannot be escaped because of the threat of imprisonment. You have no escape from it.
“Persecution, sure (if you think criminals are persecuted when they get arrested for criminal acts) but exploitation? Get a grip, kid.” - Again, look at the full picture. If I am getting exploited by the state, and I want out of it, I can’t. Its quite literally being effectively a financial slave to the state. Because unlike working for a private enterprise, walking away is not an option. The worst a business will do is fire you and maybe sue you if you violate a contract. The state on the other hand, quite literally can exploit your property and arrest you, throw you in jail, and then exploit your labor, since some jails do have labor jobs.
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 “No, the state does not make money off your work, so it's not exploitation.” - Really, then how does the state pay its government officials, how do teachers get paid, how do police men get paid, or firefighters, how does the state afford all the infrastructure? Does it just magically have it? No it comes from the tax payer.
“What do they do with the money raised by taxation? It is spent on YOUR infrastructure,” - Except it isn’t mine. I do not own a road, or a light system, or a public bus. The state does.
“YOUR health,” - healthcare is meaningless to someone who does not use it. Not mine.
“YOUR unemployment,” - Don’t use it. So again, not mine.
“YOUR defence, YOUR safety etc etc.” - Ok and so when those same police men and military within a totalitarian state start executing people for speaking against them, is that still for my safety? Or the state’s safety?
“Again, you have tremendous trouble understanding the most basic political, social and economic concepts.” - Except I don’t. You are the one trying to call capitalism exploitive, you are the one trying to deny basic supply and demand concepts, or the place of private ownership.
“All because you're having a teenage libertarian tantrum about the nasty state (which you want to replace with truly terrible, for profit agencies).” - Strawman argument, no where did I say I wanted to replace the state with anything, no where did I say the state was nasty. This is why I mentioned before, whether or not you consider the actions justified does not change what the action is. Taxes are used for the benefit of others within the society when done right, when done wrong it only further empowers the state at the expense of its own people. Taxes are exploitive on the private individual whether you like it or not. Now we can justify that exploitation. Does not change what it is. The point being made was not being a neo anarchist, it was explaining that the private owner is not going to be any more exploitive than what a state is also capable of. But of course I don’t expect you to understand that.
This is likely where I am going to end things within this discussion, given that at this point you have strayed from the actual core of the argument, thrown blind insults, shown you have a clear agenda behind this argument, and now most recently attempted to use your personal assumptions as actual facts and arguments. For what it's worth, I can appreciate the discussion as it helped me further conduct my arguments and even gain new evidence to back it. But on a respectful note since despite how misguided I consider you to be, I will simply leave things on an agree to disagree note.
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 "..and does the state have money left over once it's paid for all those services? Nope. Because it is not operated for profit." - So let me get this straight, the only way in ur mind that a state is not exploiting the taxpayer is by doing deficit spending. Its no wonder socialists end up in severe debt.
"It is a transaction." - Except it really isn't. Not a willful one at least. Its the same as a guy pointing a gun at your head unless you buy his pizza.
"You will need healthcare and unemployment benefit at some point." - Says who? If I constantly have a job and I have a private health insurance, where would I need either the healthcare or unemployment? Oh, u mean unless the state shuts down the business I'm in for not obeying its economic mandates? Is that what u meant?
"Plus, you're only alive due to the midwife that delivered you, in the hospital the state-owned ambulance drove you to," - My dad drove my mom, thank you very much.
"on the roads that the government built." - which is paid by the taxpayer.
"And then you got free education," - Free? Taxpayer is paying for that too, also what if someone uses private school?
"you can get to your job on those same roads etc etc." - U mean the road paid by exploited labor in other jobs?
"You don't get something for nothing, kid." - Unless ur the state. So let me get this straight, by ur logic. If u owe ur entire existence to the state, and must pay money to the state because u owe them, and the state can make u do whatever it wants because of that. That must mean the state effectively owns u. So much for slavery being abolished in 1865.
"As for exploitation - how does a business owner make a profit if the price they sell their product for isn't greater than all the inputs that went into it?" - Again, ur confusing profit with exploitation. So if I charge more money than the materials needed to make my product then I must be exploiting the customer. So co-ops must be exploitive too then. Or what about when the state charges additional money on road tolls? Tolls paid by your tax money.
"You might not like the term exploitation, but you can't escape the fact." - What fact? Ur confusing profit with exploitation. So tell me, do u have no money then?
"Yes, seeing as you have "developed" your argument to the point that you compare government spending on hospitals to your boss spending your excess value on a holiday," - Ur missing the point, it does not matter what they r spending it on. What matters is whose money are they using to pay for it? And unlike a business where if you feel like you r being exploited, you have the option to walk away, or quit, or start a new business, the state will literally arrest you, take away your rights, and throw u in a prison that often makes u do free labor for the state. All for not paying taxes.
"it's definitely best you give it a rest!" - Nah u bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Ridiculous. You can't possibly look at actual nazi policies in practice, regardless of what their propaganda says, and conclude they were socialist." - Yes u actually can.
"They were big on privatization," - he already countered and debunked this. They reprivatized industries they already expropriated and made sure economic groups that did not have as much threat or regulation were members of the party and by extension, the state.
"they banned trade unions," - They nationalized trade unions under the German Labor Front. Also trade unions have nothing to do with socialism.
"arrested their leaders and robbed their money" - Thats what dealing with opposition looks like in a totalitarian state, Soviets did the same.
"and they were funded and backed by the biggest capitalists and industrialists." - Because it offered them protection from the Marxists who were working to dismantle them completely. If I am forced to pick between choosing one evil who will control me but also protect me, vs one that is completely working to take away everything and have me murdered, which one do u think most would choose?
"It doesn't matter what their books said," - It actually does, because that highlights the ideology and their goals. Trying to dismiss that is ignoring the whys of their actions.
"it matters what they did, and what they did was nothing like socialism." - It actually was when they took control of the economy and redistributed Jewish wealth. What ur actually saying is it was nothing like Marxism. Which it isn't. However Marxism is not socialism, it is only a variant of socialism.
"Yes, of course they would say they're for the workers, what else would they say??" - Workers have nothing to do with socialism, once again your subscribing to Marxist theory.
"How else can you gain popular traction?? Certainly not by saying you don't care about workers, you want a highly hierarchical society and your whole thing is just an excuse to try and obliterate other races." - U mean the same way Marxists were forming a hierarchy and used it as an excuse to eliminate the other classes? Can't have ur cake and eat it too.
"Hitler certainly got a lot of support from the population by larping as a socialist but he never did any socialism at all and never put the power in the hands of the workers. Worker owned means of production? No. Democracy in the workplace? No. Abolishing wage labour? No. No no no, nothing. And you can say that's a Marxist type of socialism but there's no one single definition of socialism." - Ur right, there isn't. There are variants, but all are based within the same root. State or community control of the means of production, distribution, and trade. But that does not invalidate Hitler and Nazis as a socialists. It actually furthers my argument.
"You can say Hitler's socialism actually means "state intervention in private business". And to that I say:
- No, workers controlling the means of production is not exclusive to Marxism and is the basic premisse of all Socialism." - Except it isn't. Pre Marx socialism does not even mention the workers bud. For example Utopian and Pre Marx socialism does not even mention the workers.
"Socialism through privatization makes as much sense as "free market through planned economy". - They were re-privatized and given to those loyal to the party and state. Again, why dismantle something already working for u?
- If Hitler's socialism isn't Marx's socialism, then whose socialism is it??" - No one's, its another variant. Just like Marx rejected Pre Marx and Utopian Socialism, Hitler rejected Marxism.
"Who's the philosopher whose ideas Hitler based his "socialism" on? Oh, they were just his own ideas??" - He didn't base it on one, he made a response to what he perceived as a failed socialist concept.
"He just came up with it and so from now on everyone has to agree that's socialism because he said so??" - If it aligns with the definition and his ideology and system matched it then yes.
"Interesting. I now declare Socialism means taking a shit and so each one of you who takes a shit is a socialist." - Nice attempt at a strawman. Clearly u cannot correlate definitions to save ur life.
"There's no one true definition of socialism, so it's totally up for grabs and anyone can just say it means whatever they want it to mean after all." - The one definition is Community and State control over the means of production, distribution, and trade. There is such a things as variants. Maybe u should remember that in english.
"- The Nazis were actually keen on Oswald Spengler's Prussian Socialism. Which, to quote him, involved: "carefully preserving the right of property and inheritance, and (...) playing within the rules of the game and enjoying that sort of freedom which the very sway of the rule affords (...) Socialization means the slow transformation—taking centuries to complete—of the worker into an economic functionary, and the employer into a responsible supervisory official". So, again, nothing to do with and actually opposed to socialism as we conceive of it." - U conceive it as Marxism. His socialization of the people came much faster than Prussian version as private property rights in the Weimar Constitution were already suspended. He already redistributed wealth, he already used the state to control the economy. The only reason he did not do it 100% is because he did not yet achieve the expansion of the east which Hitler dealt was needed to complete National Socialism.
"- Even if you insist on Hitler's right to define Nazism as socialist and Spengler's right to call his Prussian Socialism socialist, they mean something completely opposed to what Marxist socialism means." - A Confederate soldier was opposed to a Union soldier. Did that mean both were no longer American?
"You can't play the "there's no one single definition of socialism, therefore everyone can just call anything socialism" card and at the same time argue that the Nazis were pretty much the same as the Marxists because they were all "socialists"." - They had many similarities through committing much of the same actions.
"Hitler's "socialism" had NOTHING to do with Marxist socialism, nothing to do with the USSR," - Even though both stole wealth from a group and had the state take control over the economy for the supposive benefit of the people.
"even if you want to consider it a brand of socialism, and so any attempt to characterize them as being basically the same, as you do in the video, is stupid beyond belief." - It is not stupid if it is factually true. Facts do not care about feelings. No one is saying it is Marxism. Its comparable to Marxism because of the same root. But National Socialism was meant to address what Hitler perceived as the biggest problems of Marxist Socialism.
"Why say "there's no single definition of socialism" if your argument is that actually their "socialism" was pretty much the same except for race?? Why defend there can be totally opposing socialisms, one that means "workers' control of the means of production, abolishment of private property and equality among all" and one that means "private businesses and privatization with state meddling and race war" and at the same time argue that they should be put right next to each other on the political spectrum because they're basically the same??? Pick one lane. And then be ridiculed for it." - Because both ensured a complete control over the economy. Yes while the Nazis are more economically right than the Soviets they were still socialist and leftist economically and the only reason the gap was not closer is the Nazis never had the chance to fully implement their version. You can have different ideals but still be rooted in the same system. You can differ in ideologies but still be placed in a similar line on a spectrum.
"Also, for some reason, you keep saying in the comments that your interpretation of this issue is the only one that explains the persecution of Jews because in a capitalist society it wouldn't happen. Then why the fuck did you make the distinction between the economic axis and the authoritarianism axis in the video?? You keep contradiction yourself. Yes, a society can be capitalism and still be ultra authoritarian!" - It can but realistically won't.. Especially within a closer to modern age. As nowadays states have more reach than back in the day.
1
-
@tasfa10 "As I said, I think you could benefit even from just reading wikipedia's page on Socialism. Start with the first paragraph. "Socialism is (...) characterised by social ownership of the means of production and democratic control, such as workers' self-management of enterprises. (...) Social ownership can be public, collective, cooperative, or of equity. While no single definition encapsulates the many types of socialism, social ownership is the one common element. Socialisms vary based on the role of markets and planning in resource allocation, on the structure of management in organizations, and from below or from above approaches, with some socialists favoring a party, state, or technocratic-driven approach. Socialists disagree on whether government, particularly existing government, is the correct vehicle for change." Just that alone should clear up a lot of your distorted ideas." - Except it doesn't because there is a clear hole in the logic, if it calls for democratic control, then by that logic, Lenin and Stalin would not be socialists either. All socialist nations lead to the same thing, complete totalitarian control over the economy and society.
Dictionary.com defines it in a more grounded and base term: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government." - Problem with ur line of thinking is that it requires democracy to obtain collective ownership. It does not.
"If you want to do serious reading, Thomas Hodgskin, John Stuart Mill, Proudhon, among many others were early socialists who advocated for worker's control of the means of production and worker unions, before Marx wrote about it." - True, but not every socialist did. For instance, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus did not, diggers movement did not, Blanqui did not even going as far to reject Marx concept ("As a socialist, Blanqui favored what he described as a just redistribution of wealth. However, Blanquism is distinguished in various ways from other socialist currents of the day. On one side, contrary to Karl Marx, Blanqui did not believe in the preponderant role of the working class,")
"Proudhon advocated for a form of socialism with the simultaneous abolition of the state, which is not necessary for or a characteristic of socialism." - Except it is, a state is defined as a political community making up a territory or nation. Without a state, what enforces collective ownership?
"I say read anything any socialist ever wrote really. You will find that yes, workers have everything to do with socialism to begin with. You can go on from there." - except they don't. I already highlighted socialists that did not subscribe to workers theory. While workers can correlate with socialism, they are not inherent to it. Even Utopian Socialists did not involve workers.
1
-
@tasfa10 "Marx observed internal contradictions of capitalism and, among many other things, advocated for a shift in power, letting those who produce own the product of their labour and the means to produce it. This has nothing to do with racial extermination." - I never said it did, again all you are saying is Hitler was not a Marxist.
"Not everything that identifies an "enemy" is socialism! Marx never advocated for the extermination of anyone but rather for who should own what." - And how did they expect to take said ownership away from those that already owned it? Maybe through violent revolt and class cleansing?
"It has NOTHING to do with nazism, NOTHING to do with the persecution of Jews, NOTHING to do with the imperialistic aspirations of Hitler who wanted to conquer land from other peoples that were not Jewish and, along with the Jews, exterminate other racial minorities, disabled people, homosexuals and, guess what, socialists. Nazism is not class struggle, it doesn't put power in the hand of the workers, it is not socialism." - Again all you are saying is that it is not Marxism. Marx is the one that advocating a class struggle, Hitler believed it was a racial struggle. Also do u forget that every socialist society has persecuted racial minorities, committed genocide, and done imperialistic aspirations? So tell me, by that logic, was Stalin and Lenin not socialist either?
1
-
@tasfa10 "You are saying Hitler is basically a Marxist only replacing bourgeoisie with Jews, and I'm explaining why that's absurd." - Except again, I never claimed Hitler was a Marxist. In fact I said the opposite admitting that Hitler was not a Marxist but still a socialist.
"The differences are plenty and fundamental, not only between Marx and Hitler, but between all different socialisms and nazism. Class struggle is a defining theme of socialism, even if not every theorist used the exact same jargon Marx used." - Except it is not, once again. The point of socialism at its most basic level is communal, state, and collective control of the means of production, distribution, and trade for the "benefit" of society.
"Defending the poor and workers from exploitation by the owner class and pushing for workers to organize and take control of the means of production is, by definition, class struggle wether they used the exact term or not." - Except as mentioned before, many did not mention workers. Now, most did admit to private owners giving up their ownership and means of production but most pre dating Marx called on that for the entire society, not for the workers. In that case, Hitler did not deviate from that since his policies were under the belief it would make a better society in Germany.
"Race war is not class struggle and you can't just go around replacing class with something else and still call it socialism." - Again, think about it. Marx based his socialism on class theory believing class was what was causing the warfare of society, Hitler believed race was the core of that belief. Hitler viewed the Jews doing the same thing Marx viewed the Bourgeoisie. Exploiting the German race for their personal benefit.
"Football isn't socialism, only replacing "class" with "team" just because you can define it as a "team struggle", the same way nazism isn't socialism only replacing "class" with "race". That's ridiculous." - except it is not when the rest of the definition aligns. It does not matter if your stealing wealth from a Jew or Bourgeoisie your still stealing wealth, it does not matter if the benefit is for the class or the race, you are still trying to benefit the collective. Again Hitler's differences from Marxism was based on a different theory of what was causing societal divide.
"The same way, the fact that violence was sometimes employed in the effort to shift power to the workers doesn't mean everything that employs violence is socialism." - I never even said it did.
"Boxing isn't socialism just because it employs violence, the same way nazism isn't socialism just because it employs violence." - But it is when it employs violence for the exact same reason. Or nearly the same reason. Again replace class with race and proletariat with the German Race/people and you get the same definition.
"Nazism has nothing to do with Marx or with ANY socialism!" - It has nothing to do with Marx within being the same ideology because Hitler openly rejected Marx, the same way Marx rejected socialists that came before him.
"Every socialist society had imperialistic aspirations?? You mean every socialist society was victim of imperialism by capitalist countries??" - Really? What did you call the Soviet failed invasion in the 20s? The splitting of Poland with Germany in the 30s? The occupation of Eastern Europe against their will? North Korea's invasion of South Korea?
"Tell me, what imperialist aspirations did Cuba have?" - they collaborated with the Soviets to put a nuclear arsenal in USA range. (In fairness Turkey did the same in collaboration with USA but still,)
"What about Vietnam??" - So South Vietnam just magically disappeared?
"Laos??" - Collaborated with North Vietnam.
"Burkina Faso under Sankara??" - You mean that rose to power through a cue?
"The USSR under Lenin and Stalin was towards a form of socialism but of course it wasn't fully realized." - Really, how long did you expect the Soviet system to be fully realized when it lived for almost 70 years?
"There was wage labour still, for example. But the idea we have that Stalin was an absolutist autocrat or a totalitarian is distorted. There are documents by non other than the CIA stating exactly, and I'm quoting: "Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated." - I will agree some of the aspects were exaggerated, but to act like Stalin did not try to base complete control is haphazard at best and delusional at worst. The Great Purge speaks for itself. As did the 5 million Ukrainians starved under the Soviet system.
"Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin (...) was merely the captain of a team (...)." - Ok then, by that logic, so was Hitler. Hitler may had led the party and the state but he was not a one man authority ordering everything. There was an entire administration in support of him including those in the Reichstag. No one is saying Stalin alone is responsible for everything. But Stalin's system was totalitarian under the state, that has been proven even by post Stalin Soviet accounts.
"It will be safer to assume that developments in Moscow will be along he lines of what is called collective leadership, unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream-line their power organization." It's important to remember Russia had to face a violent revolution, the WWII where it was the most affected by far, the cold war, horrible economic strangling by the west, espionage and attempts to destroy it from the inside, etc etc etc. Never ending struggles of a magnitude no other country ever saw. So there was a bit of an iron fist and you can understand why given the historical context. Imperialism does it intentionally. Remember " - First off, name the source please. Secondly, you can try to justify his total control all you want, that doesn't mean he did not have pretty much total control.
"unless Western policies force the Soviets to stream-line their power structure". They do it all the time. I'm not very interested in defending the soviet union and how socialist was this or that socialist experiment tho. I'm simply explaining why nazism in particular wasn't a socialist experiment despite what the name of the party said and despite all the playing with words replacing class with jews or whatever stupid acrobatics and I'm explaining why the nazis and the soviets don't belong near each other on the political spectrum even if you're stubborn enough to insist they were both a form of socialism." - Which I am not arguing National Socialism is the same as Marxism, yes some of the actions are comparable, but no where did I say they were the exact same ideology. The same way social democrats aren't the same as Marxists, the same way Marxists were not the same as Utopian Socialists. But all are branches of the same concept.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@hendrik8953 "i beg to disagree. the "minimum state" is a big flag from capitalism, "less state" on ppls lifes and so on. it dont advocate totalitarianism, true, but so does communism, no?" - Not necessary. And to correct, you mean socialism. The problem is socialism is calling for communal or collective ownership. Now, most people already know capitalists are not going to just willfully give up their property. So the question is, what forces them to?
"Capitalism from its very inception has been anti state control"
"as has being communism, with its "workers paradise"..." - Which has never existed in practice in any form. I am not talking communism considering that it only exists as a pipe dream no different than unicorn land. I am talking about socialism. Because there is no point in talking about Communism working if even socialism, the required transition to reach communism does not work either.
:what the reality shows is that both communism AND capitalism depends heavily on "state control"." - Except it doesn't. If you wish for examples of this, think of Hong Kong or 18th century Britain. Both of which exercised little state interference in the economy. While neither can be considered 100% capitalist, they were extremely close into that goal and showed that typically the less a state interferes the more free a market is.
"i thought absolutism was the system that replaced feudalism." - Not from an economic standpoint.
"feudalism itself isnt a monolitic system, being so named after a very specific, in time and place, system in use in the now "low countries"." - It does however factor as an economic system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timobrienwells "TIK claims that Operation Barbarossa failed because of a lack of fuel." - I will agree of his overemphasis on it. But even TIK states himself that oil was not the only factor.
"He presents no evidence to demonstrate this." - Later videos have more sources to back his claims. Once again, research them. Also other historians have covered and sourced this.
"His own source that he uses for this assertion, Toprani, refutes this claim! Toprani explains what happened with fuel supplies in Operation Barbarossa, and he plainly states that the Wehrmacht did NOT run out of fuel during Barbarossa. They had logistical issues, but NOT a systemic shortage." - Which is true, they did not run out of oil. But, their logistics combined with the lack of supplies, oil included among them was crippling the Wehrmacht advance. And by German economic advisors, they stated that they only had enough oil to carry all 3 Army Groups till October. Now obviously we know they were slightly wrong, it was more till November. But it was hitting a critical point. But regardless of Barbarossa. It was clear that due to both logistical and oil problems that only Army Group South would avance in 1942.
"Germany had enough fuel to mount major operations like Barbarossa in 1941and Blau in 1942, priority
Elaborate
"German manpower and industry were the limiting factors." - Clearly not. German Industry was a problem from a lack of streamlining production, but Germany already lost before those became consequence. As for manpower, Germany was not suffering full manpower shortages till mid 1943. So once again, it does not have an effect given that the war was already lost by that point.
"By 1942, Germany was fighting the Soviets in the East," - Yes.
"the British in North Africa," - 3 divisions were in North Africa, give me a break.
"the Allies in the Atlantic," - Kriegsmarine does not have an effect on the eastern front.
"and the air war over Germany was already ramping up." - Yes, and? They were not affecting the eastern front at the time. Yes the airwar was still happening, but it is kind of negated when the airpower could not be properly utilized in the east. It was not even needed too much for Blau other than the Battle of Stalingrad.
"Added to that, they had large defensive garrisons all over Europe from Norway to Greece," - Which were tiny compared to the amount committed to the east. It is once again distracting from the core issue.
"and they were fighting a partisan conflict in Yugoslavia." - Yes, and? Not many divisions were stationed there compared to the east.
"Germany had too many commitments by 1943 to launch any large scale offensive operations. It was not about fuel." - Again, that is simply false. The east remained priority, meaning that what was going on in the rest of the fronts was not affecting the east. If anything, what was happening in the east was affecting those other fronts. Again even a surface glance would make it clear that a lack of German supply, fuel being most among them that Germany's offensive capabilities were dying off. Blau was much smaller in scale than Barbarossa. Kursk had to combine AGC and AGS since neither had enough fuel and supplies by themselves. Bulge in 1944 was nothing more than a last hail mary done by an army that knew that they were going to lose. Not to mention that in the case of both Kursk and Bulge, it was pretty much dead on arrival.
"TIK does not give any real numbers to back up his assertion about the German fuel situation." - Yes he does, watch his other videos related to the Soviet economy, reserves of Romania, and German synthetic fuel.
"He makes claims without evidence." - Just like ur doing rn. No offense, it is not like u sourced anything to back ur claims either. And since ur attempting to debunk an already established info. The burden of proof falls on u.
1
-
@timobrienwells
"I have seen TIK'S other videos, and he does not produce any numbers to demonstrate that Germany ran out of fuel in 1941, or 1942." - https://youtu.be/URBlC-wjXiQ 2:18
Um, no.
"The Wehrmacht did not have a lack of supplies during Operation Barbarossa." - Source?
"What they had was major logistical issues on two occasions.
The first was during the period of the rapid advance in June/July when the motorized units outran the supply services. Eg AGC advanced 450 kilometers from Brest Litovsk to Smolensk in 25 days.
The second was in October/ November when the rainy season and the rail infrastructure led to wide scale breakdowns in supply. Neither of these events had anything to do with a fuel shortage." - Yes they did. June and July wasn't affected by oil since the fuel crisis by estimates were not taking effect till October to November time. The rainy season added to this problem since fuel was also getting burned up at a higher rate.
"In fact, AGS kept advancing from Kiev to Rostov in November 1941, a distance of 600 kilometers." - Ok, this one I will give u. However even if we were to agree that oil did not affect them in 1941, it did not change its effects within 1942 onward.
"The Africa Corps was 4 and a half divisions by late 1942, and there was a large Luftwaffe support force. By May 1943, it was a force of 250,000 men." - I already told u this. 1943, does not matter by this point since Germany already lost the war. Secondly, sources? Third, 4 is still a drop in the ocean compared to 151 divisions that was allocated to Barbarossa.
"The Kriegsmarine was a large and increasing drain on the resources of the Reich in 1942." - True, which I agree was a mistake. But u realize ur only backing my points. Because just take a guess which resource they were putting the most strain on.
"The air war was already having a big effect on the military resources of the Reich. Not only the damage to industry and infrastructure, but also the large allocation of fighter planes and 88 mm Flak guns needed to defend German skies. Both of which were needed in other theatres." - True, but like I said before. Germany in both 1941, and 42 had air superiority over the Soviets. Yes more air power could of helped, but by no means did it compromise their operations in the grand scheme of things.
"Fuel had nothing to do with whether there were large Operations in the East." - Yes it did. If u look through multiple sources TIK and Potential History provides in their videos, u would find that part of why Blau's advance was so slow was due to running out of fuel and having to wait for more fuel to be brought up. This is also why only AGS advanced. Trust me, do u not think that Army Group North and Center could advanced, they wouldn't had? Also once again. Sources!!!!
definitely
weren't
"The Red Army had 6 million men in the field in 1943, while the Germans had only 3 million." - 2 things, one it was only 5 million, secondly. Ur ignoring other Axis forces that brought the invasion force to almost 4 million in 1942. The Soviets only outnumbered them by a million men. While it is a noticeable amount, it wasn't unbearable. Espicially since Germany still had superior tanks, air superiority, and were more organized at the time.
"TIK has made the claims. His own source, Toprani, refutes his claims." - Quote please. Also that is not his only source.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/114GiK85MPs0v4GKm0izPj3DL2CrlJUdAantx5GQUKn8/edit#gid=0
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timobrienwells "The supply crisis of October / November had nothing to do with a fuel shortage." - According to what? Ur arguments are literally just devolving into "No that's not true."
"It had initially to do with the rainy season that started mid October just after the completion of the first battles of Operation Typhoon, and which brought most motor vehicles to a halt, and it also had to do with the breakdown in the rail infrastructure, which Albert Speer talks about in his book." - two things.
1. That does not disprove oil as a factor. Yes it was not the only reason, but it still very much was more than likely a factor.
"Fuel was not getting used at a higher rate in October. Again Toprani says that fuel consumption hit a peak in July, and then fell rapidly after that. " - Which in fairness was a mistake on my end.
"To claim that the supply crisis of October/November was because of fuel is unsupported nonsense." - I nor TIK said it was direct causality. But it was without a doubt a factor that made their logistical situation even worse.
"The only point about the Africa Corps was that it was yet another commitment that Germany had to allocate resources to." - Once again, 3-4 divisions.
"And sending men and equipment all the way from Germany to Tunisia, across the desert to Egypt, losing half of your supplies on the way to allied air and sea action was a considerable drain on resources." - True, but once again, that did not have an effect on the eastern front. If u research North Africa u would know Rommel was constantly being undersupplied. It was clear even at surface glance that Germany would rather have the Afrika corp undersupplied than the east.
"There is no evidence that the Kriegsmarine was severely constricted by a fuel shortage in 1941 or 1942." - Dude, u realize if Germany had no fuel shortage, that their entire navy and Italy's could of been in use. Yet for most of the war, it is sitting in port. It may not be explicitly stated, but there is enough evidence to imply it.
The constriction was more on the construction of new U-Boats to replace loses.
Albert Speer in his book says that if Germany did not have to use many hundreds of Flak 88's in air defense, that the same guns could have doubled their anti-tank strength on the Eastern Front. His book is online." - Ok and u do realize that 1, Germany accounts alone do have to be taken with a bit of salt. 2. Anti tank guns was not going to make enough of a difference when Stalingrad is what drained most of Army Group B, and that had little Soviet tanks in full use.
"AGN and AGC did not advance in 1942 because Hitler had made the Caucasus the strategic objective." - And? In Barbarossa. There were multiple strategic objectives. U would be quick to realize that only AGS could be fully supplied.
"They also could not advance because they barely had enough reserves for defending their front." - According to what evidence?
"Both AGN and AGC had large Soviet offensives to deal with in 1942 ," - And?
"and the forces they had were only just adequate. " - False, u realize Army Group Center were getting more men than even Army Group South despite AGS taking priority for the offensive. So clearly if manpower was the only concern, Army Group Center could of advanced no problem.
"The reasons for fuel shortages were just as you said. The supply services needed to catch up, not because of a lack of supply." - Within Army Group South alone. Not the entire German Army. Stop cherry picking.
"4th Panzer Army travelled several hundred kilometers from Karkhov to Voronesh, then into the Don bend in a little over two weeks from June 28th 1942." - Yes, and?
"Germany was producing more fuel in 1942, than in 1941." - First off source? Secondly. At what point? Because later in 1942, Germany takes part of the Caucasus. So is this at the tail beginning of Blau? And 3. Even if that is the case, Production verus stocked are 2 seperate things. It does not matter if Germany produces more oil if it cannot make up for the deficit.
"The other reason for the fuel shortage was that Hitler tried to run the two phases of Operation Blau simultaneously, instead of consecutively as in the original plan. This is what his decision on July 13th produced when he split ADS into AGA and AGB." - I am aware. However that being said, it does not address the core of the issue. Germany would of had to go those distances either way.
"Supply issues, and not just with fuel, were the result." - Which I agree on. I am not saying fuel was their only supply problem.
"Your numbers for the Eastern front in 1942 are not entirely accurate. According to Glantz and House[ When Titans Clashed], the totals for mid-1942 for the axis was around 3.5 million, and for the Red Army 6 million." - That does not make my source inaccurate. We have 2 different sources in use. But ur forgetting that many Soviet soldiers on the front were hospitalized very quickly from the losses of 1941.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timobrienwells "Oil production did not affect Germany's ability to conduct offensives." - The offensives they did cover no, but the ability to conduct consistent offensives yes. Once again, AGS took priority but Germany's oil demands dictated that only Army Group South could advance. Yes other factors came into play mainly Soviet counter attacks in the center, but that still does not account for neither North or Center advancing, nor does it Army Group South's own struggles of it. Yes Hitler splitting the forces was a major factor, but the distances would of had to be covered either way.
"Not even the Battle of the Bulge would qualify." - Mainly because most of what remained of German supply was put into the offensive. But even with that, it was almost dead on arrival.
"The existing and increasing manpower requirements were the main reason why Germany could not conduct offensives later in the war." - Ok, that would work for things like Bulge and even Kursk. But it does not explain Blau. Since like I heighlited before. Not only did Germany replenish most of their losses from 1941, but on top of that. Army Group Center received more reinforcements than the south and became a larger fighting for. Surely if supplies, oil among them were not an issue, they would of attempted an attack on Moscow in 1942. Taproni himself states in P39 that German synthetic oil production in 1942 was not going to make up for their deficit. As it could only 11,700,000 tons for a 15,000,000 ton deficit.
"They simply could not match the human and industrial resources of the allies." - Except early on, that was not the case. Britain and Germany pretty much had equal industrial power. So then u run into the issue that if oil was never a concern like u claim, then Hitler would have little reason not to wait before attacking the Soviets.
"No amount of oil would have enables the Wehrmacht to put more men into the fighting formations." - Within 1942, more men wasn't necessarily needed to conduct their operations. Look up David Stahel and he too will mention Germany's dire oil strain as one of the primary reasons for invading in 1941. As not even Romania or the Soviet trade could make up for the deficit.
"Germany was short of everything in WW2 because they took on too many opponents at the same time." - Such as? Within 1942, the only real enemies they were dealing with was the British, what remained of free France, and the Soviets. And once again, North Africa was a side theater of only 4 divisions. Over 75% of the German army was going east.
1
-
@timobrienwells "Going into the Caucasus was part of Hitler's "Lebensraum" idea. This idea had governed his thinking since WW1. He had always wanted to expand into the east and to use the resources there to build a German superstate.
This thinking was not entirely wrong, but Hitler's method of trying to achieve it was wrong." - I disagree
"Manstein in his book correctly stated that the only way to successfully exploit the resources of a conquered nation, was to defeat that enemy nation militarily, so as to enable exploitation." - Except that does not work either for many reasons. Mainly, u cannot defeat the Red Army in the traditional sense. Because Germany did defeat the red army in 1941, but there was another red army, and another, and another. Taking Ukraine and the Caucasus, while needed to address Germany's own food and oil crisis, was also needed to attempt to starve the Soviets of those same resources.
"Hitler wanted to exploit the resources first while still fighting the enemy nation. " - Because in a way that was the only way to defeat them. Germany had no choice, they were not going to have the fuel, raw materials, or even manpower to deal with a long attritional war. So taking those resources was essential to ensure that Germany could hold back the Soviets.
"But as Manstein and others have pointed out, while your enemy is still active militarily, there is no guarantee that resources can ever be successfully exploited." - True, but like I said before. Manstein is not applying that the Soviets is not a traditional enemy of Germany. Germany was use to fighting smaller countries like Poland and France. Not a massive nation like the Soviets. So yes, Mansteins logic would work on a smaller country, but it cannot apply against a nation where just defeating their army is not an option. The Soviets had over 30 million in reserve. So trying to do a man to man fighting war was not an option for Germany. Not only because of their own resource limitations. Oil being among them. Contrary to ur belief TIK is not the only one to cover this, but also to deprive the Soviets of their war making potential.
"And this is exactly what happened in the Caucasus. Maikop was captured in August 1942, but it never produced much oil to speak of because the Red Army remained undefeated." - No, they failed to extract much oil because they had to spend time rebuilding the oil fields since the Soviets destroyed it before retreating. Once again, defeating the Red Army in a traditional sense was not an option.
"Same with the mineral and food production resources of the Ukraine and the Donetz basin." - To a lesser degree yes, but once again. That has more to do with scourge earth than the Red Army.
1
-
@timobrienwells "Operation Blau was Hitler's idea, and he was putting the cart before the horse." - Not necessarily. He was loading the carriage before the horse moved. Like I said before, the Red Army could not be defeated in the traditional sense. Hell not even Britain or the USA thought they could. So for Germany, seeking and exploiting the resources was their only options to continue to maneuver type war they wanted to fight, otherwise they would not have the supplies later on and would lose the static war that would follow.
"What Germany needed to do in 1942 was impose a strong defeat on the Red Army and then try to negotiate a way out of the conflict." - Once again, how do u defeat an army of over 30 million men in reserve? Germany tried ur method in 1941 and it did not work. Because once again, everytime a Soviet army group got encircled, there were 2 more ready to take their place. Attrition was something Germany could not win without crippling Soviet war making potential and ensuring their own resources were completely covered.
"Instead, Hitler thought that he could build a self-sufficient fortress, but he was wrong." - He was more correct than Manstein. Once again, the fortress of resources was the only hope he had for the Nazi regime. As their own output alone without trade was never going to be enough. The problem with trade of course being not only did the Nazis hate trading but as well as the fact of the British blockade.
"Operation Blau did not suffer from a systemic lack of fuel, and I have seen no historical data to demonstrate that. It did suffer logistical shortages, but that happened with almost every offensive." - In fairness German logistics were shit. And I confess that tanks running out of fuel during the campaign does have a lot to do with logistics. But once again, these problems are only centered with the fact that Army Group South took priority in offense. If all 3 army groups could of been supplied properly for the offensive, all 3 would of tried to advance. In fact, part of the reason why Army Group Center was ordered as hard as they were to stand their ground was so they could be in a position to attack Moscow the next year.
1
-
@timobrienwells "The Wehrmacht did not have the resources to advance on all fronts in 1942." - Oil being most among them.
"All the oil in the world would not have changed that." - It would of improved their movement of mechanized forces since that was the main thing they were struggling to move. Why do u think they had German scouts use bicycles?
"They did not have the manpower," - False. As I have shown before. Germany only had 40,000 less troops in the east than they did at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa.
"and their economy was not much more than on a peace time footing." - Not really. I will agree that their war economy was not on the right footing, however in the grand scheme of things, that would not affect them anymore in Blau than it did in Barbarossa.
"Armaments production was still on a relatively low level, as Speer points out in his book." - True, but did not affect the Blau campaign overall. There are little to no cases of Germany running of of munitions during Blau. If u care to argue otherwise, please provide an occurrence.
"Germany did not need to invade the Soviet Union in 1941. It was receiving food, mineral and oil shipments from the Soviets all the time." - Except as multiple historians have pointed out. The trade with the Soviets was not making up for Germany's deficit. In fact it is shown through their oil consumptions that not even 2 Romanias could make up for it.
"Hitler wanted to invade it. The increasing domestic crude and synthetic fuel output would have covered German needs." - Except it didn't. David Stahel notes this, that 1941 was the last year that Germany could conduct the offensive with the fuel to move the mechanized units as needed to finish the campaign in 3 months. The time they thought it would take the bring down the Soviets.
"There was not a 'fuel deficit' in 1942. You cant have a 'deficit' of something that you dont have." - Do u not know what a deficit is? If Germany is draining more oil than it can adequately produce, that is a deficit. And according to economic advisors in Germany, the deficit would begin affecting the German military after October of 1941. Even if u want to argue that it was not the case in 1941, it definitely has factually became a notable issue in 1942 onward.
"The Germans had tight, but sufficient supplies of fuel in 1942," - For Army Group South.
"and they ended the year with a surplus." - 1. Source? 2. U mean after they were tied down in Stalingrad?
"By the same logic Britain had a 'deficit' for fuel too, but they kept their forces supplied." - Except they didn't. Britain could still import oil unlike Germany, not to mention Britain had control over the middle east and ended up splitting either Iraq or Iran, I forget which one with the Soviets in 1942. So no, that logic does not apply. Germany did not have the ability to produce oil on its own and its trade was cut off from most of the world due to the British blockade. Since the main oil exporter to Germany was Venezuela.
"By 1942, Germany was fighting the Soviets in Russia, The British and the US in the air war over Germany and in the Atlantic," - Which did not make a difference on the Wehrmacht.
"and they had their big commitments in North Africa." - 3 divisions is not a major commitment. Christ, Norway had more divisions.
"Added to that were at least 1 million men in occupation forces from Norway to Greece." - First off, source. Secondly, u realize that it does not make a difference since I noted before, Germany for the most part replenished their forces from 1941. Their forces may not be at 100% full strength but the manpower was definitely around. The problem was they could not adequately supply the forces they already had.
"They did not have the manpower for major operations." - As I noted before, that has already been debunked. At worst, Germany only had a couple hundred thousand less than the previous year. Which while notable, is not going to cripple them. Blau had more men going into it, than Army Group South did during Barbarossa. So once again, manpower was not the problem in the grand scheme of things.
"North Africa consumed a disproportionate amount of resources because of the length of the supply line, and because of the loses due to naval and air attacks by the British." - Except once again. North Africa was not prioritized at all in troops or supplies. Rommel notes constantly how under supplied the Afrika corp was. Note that is only 3 divisions. So once again, North Africa was not taking an effect on the eastern front. Also worth noting that the US does not get actual troops to Africa until the tale end of 1942.
"The Germans could not and did not exploit the resources of the Soviet Union because they could not defeat the Red Army." - Again, not really. I have told u this before. Germany's own logistics and supply shortcomings did far more harm to Blau than the Red Army ever did. Yes, the Red Army won. But ur failing to account that Germany's mistakes in Blau were more to do with arrogance and lack of foresight, than trying to get the resources.
"They could never secure the Caucasus, as it was too large an area at too greater distance from the Reich." - I would argue against that as well. Blau came very close for Germany succeeding in its objectives. Yes the distance was a problem, but Germany had no choice. Their fuel deficit and the need to starve the Soviets dictated that Germany had to do this attack. It was a throw in the dice. If they attacked, they might of lost, but if they did nothing, the certainly would of lost.
"While the Red Army remained in the field, grabbing resource areas was meaningless. as Manstein, and Halder and Guderian, and Warlimont clearly stated. Hitler thought otherwise and he was proven wrong." - U realize the same Halder who sabatoged Barbarossa, the same Manstein who lost over half of his tanks during Barbarossa. The same Guderian who left major Soviet forces in pockets between the tanks and infantry? U fail to account that these generals made their own errors in judgement just as much as Hitler. Also it is like I said before again and again. The red army could not traditionally be defeated. If Germany went by Halder's logic, Germany would never take the resources and the fight would just go on forever. Without depriving the Soviets of the means to fight, a 4 million force is not going to be able to defeat a 30 million force.
"By early 1942, Hitler had a tiger by the tail, and he needed to eliminate one of his enemies, either by force or by negotiation. Otherwise the war was lost." - I will be fair u have a point here, but once again. Ur failing to account that the Soviets could not and would not be defeated without being deprived of their means/resources to fight.
"Germany had enough fuel resources to keep on fighting for 4 years after it invaded the Soviet Union." - yes to continue to fight the war. That is not the same is conducting consistent major offensives to keep initiative in the war. Japan kept fighting till 1945, does that mean they had any chance of winning after Midway? No. Because once again, Germany by 1943 did not have the proper resources to keep the initiative in the war. All they were doing after that point was delaying the inevitable. Ur also failing to account for the factors that allowed the Germans to have that possibility.
1. (I will give this to u despite ur over exaggeration on it) Increase Synthetic oil production
2. Italy defected to the allies, so Germany secure Italian oil reserves which helped a great amount but was not going to be enough.
3. Demoterization of multiple German military assets. (Kriegsmarine was getting docked in 1943, Luftwaffe was grounded in many areas which was part of the reason why allied bombings became easier from 1943 onward, Scouting vehicles such as Trucks, Military cars, ETC)
4. Combining Army Group resources (Scale of operations were decreasing meaning that oil could more adequately get to areas.)
5. The Germans were mostly fighting a defensive war at this point, so fuel is not getting used as often.
But even with all of that. It was not going to be enough.
"It may have desired the resources in the East, but it did not require them for national survival." - Once again yes it was. Germany was not going to just magically get oil. They could not trade because of the British and now American blockade. There were only 2 options they could get oil from to fix their deficit. The middle east or the Soviet Union. And we know which one they chose. But regardless. 1941 was their last opportunity to get the oil before it began affecting them. Even Marshall Temachenko knew this when the Germans invaded.
"Russia was defeated in a 'traditional sense' in WW1." - No it wasn't. First of all, Russia and WW1 and the Soviets in WW2 are very different animals both militarily and politically.
Secondly. While I do count the Germans beating the Russians in WW1, u have to account that was under very different circumstances and very different objectives. 1. Germany more a less just needed to knock Russia out of the war to defeat France. They were not trying to conquer the entire Russian lands like the Nazis were trying in WW2.
2. The Russian means to fight never left. Instead it was just fighting itself. So even with the German victory. It was only obtained through Russia destroying itself. Both of these are advantages Germany had in WW1 that the Nazis were never going to have in WW2.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@timobrienwells “You have presented no facts to substantiate your opinions.” - Yes I did. I already showed you both statistics and sources. Quotes from Taproni and references to David Stahel most respectively.
“Show us the evidence that the Germans did not have enough fuel to launch offensive operations.” - First off, I already showed info related to the deficit. Secondly, I don’t even have to. I already stated this before. Ur the one trying to debunk TIK with his already established claim, meaning the burden of proof falls on you, which you are yet to provide. So I can use the same logic on you. Provide me evidence that Germany did in fact have the fuel needed to pull another Barbarossa in 1944 like you so claim.
“You don't have that evidence, and you know you don't.” - Laughs in “First War for Oil” and “Opertation Barbarossa and Germany’s defeat in the East”
“Operation Blau was proceeding while the Luftwaffe was fighting all over Europe and Africa, and while the Kriegsmarine was fighting in the Atlantic.” - Ok, like I said before. Yes, the luftwaffe had to defend key positions in western Europe, but that has nothing to do with whether mechanized units could properly move east. Also once again, Africa had 3 divisions. 3!, Even Norway had more divisions.
“There was obviously enough fuel for those operations.” - None of which were major. Germany was dealing with the Atlantic and Air campaign since 1940 and was separated from what the Werhmacht were doing. It is not like air defenses are going to use as much fuel as a major summer offensive, which utulizes moterized, armored, and aerial units. And in the case of Blau, sea units as well. Not to mention ur point is kind of negated since by 1943, much of the luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine were grounded.
“You don't have any real knowledge or understanding of this topic, so stop trying to pretend that you do.” - I clearly have more than u given that most modern historians have come to a similar conclusion and unlike you, I have provided sources to back my points.
“You have no idea what the historians say about this issue.” - Really now, I already listed 2 books that backed my points, not to mention there are dozens of historical videos that cover this as well.
“You are just pretending that you are informed.” - Maybe look at the mirror.
“Your lack of detailed knowledge has been obvious from the start.” - Really now. Once again, I provided sources, logic, and reasoning, u didn’t. U cannot call ur self knowledgeable when ur arguments just come down to “Na uh, that ain’t true.”
"I have been willing to carry you for a few rounds but you have out worn your welcome." - U haven't carried anything. U have not even factually supported ur claim.
“No, it is only you who does not know what he is talking about. You are totally uninformed about this issue.” - Again how so?
“I have been overly polite, even though I knew that you did not know what you were talking about from the start,” - Ur to talk. Provide me a single bit of evidence to state that Germany had enough oil reserves in 1942-43- or 44 to do a Barbarossa style offensive. Care to show any stats of German supply deficits or stockpiles? No? Then clearly it is u who does not understand the topic.
“but putting up with your childish ignorance any more is no longer worth it.” - LOL. Now u must be trolling. U know, I don’t care how much an argument frustrates me, I would not find it in my self to call my historical opponent a child. Especially if I had no grounding to back my debunks. But clearly some just lack that kind of maturity to make the adult decisions. ;)
“You are a child.” - 1. I am probably older than u r. 2. If I am not older than u, then u need to go take a communication class so u can understand how to civilly talk to people. If u cannot do that, then u can fuck right off.
“Oi was an issue ,” - Funny, I am a child by ur logic, yet I can at least spell oil.
“but not the critical one.” - 1. Sources? 2. If that was the case then there is literally no reason why Germany would not pull another Barbarossa in 42.
“It was not the reason the Germans lost the war.” - Sources?
“But you would not know anything about that.” - Coming from the one who cannot even provide a source to echo his point. LOL, I am seriously questioning if ur trolling. U have not provide a single proper source to back ur claim that Germany was in fact not suffering an oil crisis.
“You are entirely clueless about this topic.” -
“Stop being such a silly, childish fool, and admit the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.” - Hahahahahhaha. Ok now ur funny, because by that logic, ur calling TIK, Potential History, David Stahel, Taproni, Marshal Timoshenko, Paulus, Military History Visualized, The Armchair Historian, and more fools as well. Mind u that all of these people back my point. I question if u can truly find someone who can flat out say that Germany had enough fuel reserves to pull an offensive the size of Barbarossa or Blau in 1944.
“You have no idea what the historians have said.” - My list begs to differ. Not to mention like I said, u have not provided one historian that holds the same conclusion as urs. And as I have stated before and will say again. Ur the one trying to argue against an already established point, meaning it is on u to find the evidence to debunk it. I have nothing to prove to u. U have to prove it to me and the majority of people. Because even schools for how outdated they are, have now begun teaching the oil crisis. Granted, they were 8 years late, but still counts for something. So once again. Show me some stats that show Germany’s stocks and usage of motorized units in 1944. If u cannot do that, then I will accept your defeat. Good day. Jackass.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 omg how many times must this be stated to you? "The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch." - That’s the full quote! I already gave my interpretation of it and I’m not going through that argument again.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zekeybeats2927 "there is no context needed. He literally within the first 30 seconds depicts hitlers system as socialist because he said so and that it wasn’t capitalism and left wing.(which he never claimed it to be and hated it) wrong, wrong, wrong. Dishonest. Why would I listen to 5 hours of someone trying to justify those 3 completely flawed statements to taint the definitions and examples of socialism and keep the Cold War vibes up:" - Because that is not context, that is like I mentioned before dismissing the claim out of hand without looking into the logic or evidence behind it. At that point ur attacking the video and the claim under an emotional standpoint because if u had no emotional stake in not wanting it to be true, u would have no problem watching the video as a whole or at least half way and see the type of logic being presented.
"Just so you can claim that all socialist systems are inherently left leaning, completely misrepresent hitlers disgusting facist system which represents capitalism in function and end result way more than any socialist system(by the creators own admission)" - Except it wasn't. Hitler never claimed to be a capitalist, in fact he saw capitalism as a Jewish concept, often referring to it as International Jewish Finance. And it was not Fascism either. At least not its original definition. The only reason Hitler has been depicted as a Fascist is because Fascism got redefined post war in order to directly correlate all the Axis with each other ideologically speaking.
"Man. How can you try and say I’m dismissing the nonsensical claim meant to create a narrative that’s sole purpose is to try and “shit on” the left wing and further divide our political systems where we say hitler was socialist I know what I’m talking about cause I was socialist." - Because u r dismissing it out of hand rather than taking the context in. Again, IDC what ur opinion of the topic is. IDC how absurd u think it is. U owe it to ur self as an intellectual and to ur movement (I am assuming ur a socialist), to watch and understand the argument he is presenting and then after the video when the entire context is displayed, present ur counter arguments. Blind labelling ain't going to get anyone anywhere.
"Stop. As a human being it’s just straight up so wrong to be able to write words yet Intentionally draw our growing brain dead society closer to drowning while claiming you’ll debate and own anyone who thinks hitler ain’t socialist(you know cause you used to be one)" - And again, that is allowing ur projected beliefs to override taking in facts, evidence, debates, and different viewpoints, and coming to a conclusion accordingly. What ur doing rn by definition is equated to zealotry. If u wish to see the truth or at the very least be able to be better convincing with ur beliefs, u need to stop doing that.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lottnio8207 of course the reason you are not getting this is because you think religion is the only aspect of someone’s Identity and beliefs when they aren’t. Gun rights are literally within the 2nd amendment, standing for those is just being American, economies have already shown higher taxes is usually more destructive on an economy’s growth, not to mention why should people who earned their riches be forced to pay a higher percentage? Your deluding yourself if you think Christians have done more censorship than the modern or historical left, what biology aren’t we teaching exactly? What part of history is being whitewashed? Fighting against abortion is defending someone’s right to live (not contradictory btw considering “thou shall not murder), being against illegal immigration is both for the sake of national preservation and to prevent the inviting of things such as cartels, illegal drugs, high unemployment, etc. That’s literally practical purpose. Need I say more?
You are free to hold your stances all you want, but be aware that just as you are so quick to judge people based on those stances, we have just as much ability to do it on u. I won’t, because it’s not productive to point fingers instead of actually discussing things through morality, logic, and reasoning.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexharrison9340 "1/Such as the fairly recent US crimes in Vietnam," - Recent? Like.
"Afghanistan," - Pulled out of.
"ongoing crimes in Iraq, murdering an Iranian General who held diplomatic status etc." - Not even comparable to socialist genocide.
"Undermining, interfering and destabilising socialist ( even mildly social-democratic countries such as Venezuela)" - How? Sanctions don't count.
"endeavouring to replace left regimes with fascists in their own excessively nationalist, militaristic image ( e.g Pinochet )." - Like who? R u referring to Cold War America?
"We don't hear so much now with the ongoing persecution of Assange but it's safe to assume US war criminality continues." - Assume.
"The US infamously ignores habeas corpus with institutions such as Guantanamo Bay." - I never said the US had a completely clean record bud.
"2/Trump dispatched the descendants of over 500, 000 US settler-colonialists (a better performance than the real American, Crazy Horse, could have dreamt of) in just a few short months." - Elaborate
"His stupid covid management amounted to gross negligence manslaughter." - Considering the situation at the time, I would hardly hold too much resentment towards him, yes he could of done things better. Ok, and?
"3/Backing from US capitalists such as Henry Ford and German Nazi capitalists proves NS was just a front for extreme capitalism," - Being backed internationally or even nationally for mutual gain is not the same as ideological alignment. There have been plenty of times alliances are made for such ends
"at the time ( straight after the Great Depression, one of capitalisms worst systemic crashes) nearly every party in Europe had to use words like 'workers', 'labour', 'peoples', 'communist' or 'socialist' in its name to get any votes at all, regardless of what it really, secretly stood for." - Trying to make an appeal is not the same as ideology itself. Conservative parties still existed, as did liberal, and even monarchists. The reason why Socialists were quick to take power at that time was people wanted quick solutions. Also this does not even have anything to do with Hitler.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alexharrison9340 "Modern politics, past politics, it's pretty much the same struggle of good against the alternative. 1945 isn't that long ago." - It is when factoring how much changes since then.
"I agree with you Orange, pretty sure H was a Trumpian crook who lied to everyone, regardless." - Hitler did lie to everyone overall. However, there were still ideals he believed in.
"Define right wing? Certainly, hyper nationalistic, racist, eugenicist, Malthusian myth believers." - So by that logic, was Stalin a right winger? There are so many reasons why that categorization does not work. For one Nationalism or even Racism can be associated with capitalist or socialist. Another is it ignores economics, and it ignores political systems placed in.
"Belief in the myth that state finance is the same as personal finance, denial of women's rights over their own bodies, that kind of stuff, I'm sure you know it really." - Which I explained before why those don't hold a consistent metric. Otherwise how do u define someone like Stalin, or Mao. Personal bigotry is not ideological alignment.
1
-
"Germans could win WW II."
Disclaimer I agree.
"FIRST - coordinate the attack on Russia with Japan that simultaneously should attacks in Siberia, so that fresh Siberian Russian troops couldn't be used by Stalin against Nazis;" Problem is realistically Japan would never due so based on both their resources being depleting due to US embargo but also because their army was tied in China and getting bogged down.
"SECOND - Simultaneously decisively, relentlessly attack from Norway in order to take super vital port of Murmansk ( about 60 miles from the border ) and cut off any supplies, help from outside World including later the Lend Lease. It could direct, tight a bulk of Russian forces there to take Murmansk back. Without that aid Stalin is doomed. No oil from US. As a consequence no Stalin's order to destroy oil fields in the South. Red Army in a Chaos. Moscow could be taken."
While I agree that could help the two problems are one that the British navy could counter Germany's attempt to block them and 2 most USA lend lease was crossing the pacific.
"THIRD - Use a slogan " It's LIBERATION operation from communist oppression", treat people humanly, no mass murders of any kind. Underground (Partisans), that was very effective harassing occupying forces, destroying railroad tracks wouldn't exist without people supporting them. Ukrainians, Lithuanians, Latvians or Estonians, they hate Stalin oppression. That's a historic fact that they welcomed incoming Germans with flowers. They rather denounce that partisan stuff to Gestapo." Problem with this is that is clashes the Nazi ideology and clashes the strategy for how soldiers were meant to resupply during Barbarossa. Taking it from the people. Also Germany could not adequately supply these groups anyway.
"FOURTH - go South as soon as possible to take the oil fields bypassing Stalingrad. After that come back to Stalingrad with the Gustav Gun (almost 50km range), that was used during the Sevastopol Siege. GOOD THING IT DID NOT PLAYD OUT. I'm Polish, so I'm so happy, Hitler lost. My late Father (87) was a partisan then front line soldier during WW II on Eastern Front, killed over 160 Germans. Out of over 800 soldiers unit that my Father belonged to, just three of them survived including my dad."
Ok this one I would actually somewhat agree with except Army groups B does have to secure it's northern guardline first before going south, otherwise Operation Uranus will cut them off.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 Objectively false. So you're denying that he centralized government power, exercised the use of tariffs, arrested people who made anti war media, and where he literally stated in quote that the Republican party was fundamentally conservative.
So I guess he never said, “But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.”
Or this, "The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."
1
-
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 "Firstly preventing the capacity to engage in trade with even foreign "
“Tariffs don't prevent foreign trade.” - They create limits for it as protective tariffs basically penalize people that buy certain products in a foreign market
“Free markets are understood to be markets that are free of undue influence.” - Who decides what is or isn’t undue?
“If foreign governments are interfering with local markets, then free market principles require local government correction.” - Some would disagree hence why plenty of free market advocates are opposed to tariffs.
“You just used Republican as an antonym of liberal, which someone even vaguely honest would be ashamed to have done.” - You literally did the same thing in another thread. I will give you I was wrong in my word choice there, but don’t be going high and mighty when you literally did the same comparison.
“There are modern members of both parties and both ideologies that support tariffs, and members from both that oppose them. This is sensible, since tariffs are neither required nor prohibited by either system.” - Ok so by your own admission, Lincoln could still be a conservative and support tariffs. Correct?
“Some forms of liberalism, perhaps. Not all. Certainly not liberalism as it existed in the Americas at the time.” - Literally liberalism in its most basic form advocates limited government.
“Of course the two things aren't equal. I've never said they were 'equal'. Plenty of left-orientated ideologies are anti-slavery. Anarcho-communists are anti-slavery, but they aren't liberals. But liberals are inherently anti-slavery. And Lincoln was a liberal.” - Funny how you only mention left wing ideas rather than those on both sides, almost as if you have a certain agenda you are trying to promote. And according to who? As mentioned, classical liberals would take the stance that even if a stance was taken morally, that does not mean they would want the government to interfere. And as mentioned, Lincoln could still just as easily be an Anti Slavery conservative. Now contrary to what you may think, I don’t think Lincoln was exclusively a conservative either. He was a moderate constitutionalist who wanted to ensure that America lived up to its original promise highlighted in the constitution. If Lincoln was a Liberal in any way of the word, he was a conservative and moderate one. And his statements clearly stated where his stances were.
The issue you are not getting is just like you claim there is more than one breed of liberalism, there can just as easily be more than one breed of conservative. The key divide within the North was between the Anti Slavery and Abolitionists. Which should be clear to explain that at the time, there was a key difference between Anti Slavery and a full abolitionist.
People who were Anti Slavery, were against the practice of slavery, but they believed that the focus should be to contain it and let it get phased out on its own, even willing to provide fininaital compensation.
People who were Abolitionists on the otherhand, wanted slavery gone immediately and that the more gradually phasing the anti slavery members were advocating was not good enough for them. Lincoln was an Anti Slavery member, not an abolitionist. At least not before the war. The South had similar divides both before and during the secession except for them it leaned more between the moderates and extreme pro slavery.
This is the point, you are trying to paint it as a typical black and white idea of liberalism vs conservatism when the reality was both sides had elements of both. Especially since as mentioned, the concepts were not mutually exclusive at the time. Lincoln in the best since was socially liberal and politically conservative. In summary, he was a moderate. So the thing I will give you upon further research is you’re not entirely wrong. But I would argue that while your points do hold some merits, I think you are trying to rule out the idea that was also conservative in just as many fronts. I don’t know if that is out of ignorance or for the sake of an agenda. Only you can answer that one. Another factor I think you are ignoring when describing the north as a whole is much of the north disagreed with Lincoln. Lincoln was not necessarily the most popular president even among the northern states, as many believed that despite his moderate views on most fronts, he was too aggressive against slavery (Kinda ironic considering his stances weren’t far off from most anti slavery members, but my point stands) and in a sense caused the Civil War. He even came close to losing the 1864 election if it wasn’t for the victory Sherman amounted for him. The North had many internal divides, just like the south also did.
For better or worse, the reality is aside from one side being pro slavery and the other anti slavery. No other stances were a black and white issue. For either Lincoln, or the north as a whole.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “Nope. They only disincentivize it. That's not a limit.” - Except it is, artificially taxing more on the grounds of protectionist policies is a limit. It may be a small limit, but a limit nonetheless.
“And if it's to counter undue influence, it isn't a violation of free markets but a protection of them. This is just me repeating what I've already said. I'm not repeating it again, stop being wrong.” - As mentioned it isn’t wrong. It is a matter of perspective. As mentioned many liberals themselves have disagreed with Tariffs for this very reason.
“That's shockingly irrelevant. If you believe the influence is undue, you act against the undue influence. You might be wrong, but that's entirely irrelevant to the conversation.” - If you give the government an overreaching power to combat undue influence, there would be concern if they themselves become an undue influence.
“I'm sure 'some' would. The existence of an anti-tariff liberal position doesn't invalidate the existence of a pro-tariff liberal position.” - Nor would it invalidate a Pro Tariff Conservative one.
“I'm fairly careful with my language. Just to be sure, I went back through the threads we've talked in. And while I did find another instance of YOU doing that, I can't find any examples where I did it. Perhaps you could quote it?” - I did not find the original comment due to Youtube’s deletion issues, but I did find your response to my criticism of when you did.
I say, “since you’re trying to paint liberal and conservatives as opposites.” You respond with, “They’re not opposites per se, but most liberal ideologies are opposed to most results of most conservative ideologies, and vice versa. So while you ‘can’ have conservative liberals or liberal conservatives, it is rare.” So two points to cover with that. Firstly, you did strongly imply them to basically be opposite stances. Secondly, by your own admission in this response, something I agreed with Liberal Conservatives or Conservative Liberals wasn't impossible. So who is to say Lincoln couldn’t have been both as my earlier comment suggested?
“If the only information we had about him was his position on tariffs, sure. You realize that the statement 'Lincoln wasn't a liberal because he supported tariffs' is wrong if liberals can support tariffs, regardless of whether or not conservatives can also support them, right? It's not probative here.” - I will retract that statement. But I would also argue, as mentioned, that along with most of his other stances did not rule him out from being a conservative either.
“Limited government is not equivalent to decentralization. A limited federal government is more liberal than a series of authoritarian decentralized governments. So centralization of power is not probative either.” - Slavery alone would not make them authoritarian, as least not by the south’s pov at the time.
“It is true that you previously wrongly said that classical liberals would support slavery. I don't know why repeating this hilariously absurd bit of claptrap would be a good idea.” - Alright, I will be fair here. I did confuse the statuses of classical liberals to libertarians. And I feel like many of my misconceptions were rooted into that.
[Skipping some stuff I broadly agree with...]
“No, Lincoln was an abolitionist. He literally abolished slavery.” - Post war, and that was only because there was a political climate to do so. However it was not an action that would have been done if the war had not occured.
“Political actions are more important than political statements.” - In some cases true, but that point is made mute if you don’t consider the contrast in circumstances before the war vs after the war. And the fact that Lincoln, along with many other northerners did have their hearts harden as a result from the war.
“Also, we have plenty of private correspondence where he indicates abolitionist preferences, and only public statements of containment.” - The thing is many anti slavery had abolitionist preferances, the thing was there is a difference between a desired preference and what lengths they were willing to go politically to achieve said goal. Abolitionists and Anti Slavery members had the same end, the same destination. They just differed in the method they were desiring to go in. Lincoln was an Anti Slavery through his stances. He was not willing to rip the country in half over the issue, he was willing to provide the south concessions as a condition for gradual emancipation, and even stated he would not abolish slavery if it meant doing so would tear up the union.
“If he was publicly abolitionist before the war, he never would have been elected. Again, political statements are irrelevant.” - Except they aren’t, especially when again nothing at the time contradicted those statements. Now, if you are willing to provide quotes of Lincoln’s private statements, I will gladly read them out. And the thing is yes, an abolitionist would not had gotten elected, many of them got a bad name from failed slave revolts driven by abolishinists. Hence why Lincoln knew he could not be an abolitionist if he hoped for slavery to one day go without causing a civil war. Of course once when that war did happen, that political concern did not really matter anymore especially once the Union started winning.
“ I agree that both the North and the South had both liberals and conservatives. I've never said otherwise. I have said that the North was predominantly governed by liberals, and the South predominantly by conservatives.” - As mentioned, I don’t agree that the north was predominantly liberals. Especially when as we covered earlier, the concepts weren’t mutually exclusive from one another. And if we are talking about it in the context of slavery, there were a lot more Anti Slavery members than abolishinits at least before the war.
“Both had local opposition. I would even grant that there were anti-slavery elements in both conservative and liberal camps, although they reached the position from divergent reasoning.” - True.
“Here I stress that I'm agreeing with your distinction between anti-slavery and abolitionist, because abolitionism is an inherently anti-conservative movement.” - The thing is I don’t agree with that though. Being an abolitionist did not automatically contradict conservative values. Now if it was to the lengths of starting a slave revolt, then sure. But the idea of getting rid of slavery was not contradictory to the aspect northern conservatives cared about, which was the constitution. Of course I will grant you that most northern conservatives did not take abolitionist stances. Many reasons for that, but the main one was they did not want to rock the boat too much and risk what occurred in the American Civil War. Lincoln in that sense was similar, though I will agree he was more hardcore in the anti slavery position than much of his peers. That position only came to become more radical during the war. The most that could be said is that Lincoln started as an Anti Slavery and became an abolishinist during the war.
“Although not, of course, a necessarily liberal one.” - Agreed.
“Just as being pro-slavery is an inherently anti-liberal position, but not necessarily a conservative one.” - After the research I conducted I can agree with that. I will grant you, I made the mistake of confusing liberalism with libertarianism. A very fool hardy’s mistake.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9
"Protectionist policies are a limit." You must not know what the word 'limit' means. You are wrong by definition, no further conversation needed here.”
Limit: a restriction on the size or amount of something permissible or possible. - Or possible. When artificial policies are placed to make the purchases harder through either restrictions or charging much more, that would create a limit. So no, I really am not.
“The existence of anti-tariff liberals is not an argument against the existence of pro-tariff liberals. You have no argument here, so no further conversation needed here either.” - True, but it does not rule out that someone pro tariff can just as easily be conservative.
“Which is why pro-tariff liberals want checks and balances to limit government authority with them. Still support tariffs from a liberal position. Again, you have no argument.” - Ok, and as mentioned, Anti Tariff liberals have argued that allowing the government to impose such tariffs would prevent the government from being limited as it would allow them to control trade on a global level. And ironically pro and anti tariff conservatives have similar debate.
“The existence of pro-tariff conservatives is completely irrelevant to whether or not there were pro-tariff liberals.” - Not in this context, since I have argued that Lincoln through most of his stances absolutely could of been conservative as much as liberal.
“ You found an instance of me treating liberalism and conservatism as broadly (but not strictly) incompatible. This is not an example of me treating Republicans as incompatible with liberalism, or Democrats as incompatible with conservatism, or any other combination of party and ideology. Which was the thing you did that you said I also did. And just to be sure, I double checked that thread AGAIN, and sure enough, I didn't do what you claim in that thread. Try again.” - Maybe not outright, but the connotation you used strongly implied you thought with that mindset. Until clarifications were put in, I was going to question those aspects.
"But I would also argue, as mentioned, that along with most of his other stances did not rule him out from being a conservative either."
“I don't think most of anyone's stances could rule them out of any political ideology, because people have thousands of positions on random things, while political ideologies are defined by only a few subjects. The question isn't 'could you rule out conservatism with a random sampling of Lincoln's positions', it's 'Do any of Lincoln's positions rule out conservatism?' Or more accurately here (since liberal and conservative are not 'strictly' exclusive), 'Do any of Lincoln's positions indicate liberalism OR an incompatibility with liberalism?' See how I avoided the need to prove a negative?” - This is something I already addressed in a previous comment.
“I don't know what thing I said you think this is a response to, but it certainly isn't the thing you quoted immediately beforehand.” - By calling the southern states “Authoritarian states.”
"I did confuse the statuses of classical liberals to libertarians." A mistake as grave as going in against a Sicilian when death is on the line.” - Perhaps so.
"Post war" Emancipation Proclamation was during the war.” - Only within the rebel states, slavery was not made illegal on a national level until post war.
“Yes, Lincoln couldn't act politically on his abolitionist preferences until it was politically possible. So?” - So, it proves as mentioned, both anti slavery and abolitionists had the goal to end slavery, where they differed was political method. Lincoln’s methods prior to the war as Anti Slavery.
“It's unlikely that the political environment would have allowed it without the war, so possibly true. Not probative to whether or not he WANTED to abolish slavery.” - Almost Every Anti Slavery wanted it abolished eventually. Again the differences were method and patience. Lincoln’s goal prior to the war within his political stance was to contain slavery in the states it was already in and allow it to be phased out gradually. Lincoln was never going to shoot for an overnight abolishment before the war.
"In some cases true" I think that the proposition 'politicians lie' is so close to always true as makes no practical difference.” - Nothing indicated that Lincoln lied. Yes, you can say Lincoln would of done more than what he claimed, but in an alternate scenario where the Civil War never happened, you would of had no way to prove that. The thing is, you cannot just assume every politician to lie, you contrast what they say with actions that would have contradicted it. And Lincoln didn’t contradict it, at least not till 1865, after the war and its effects took place.
“I agree that many people became MORE abolitionist because of the war. That's not probative to whether or not Lincoln was abolitionist prior to the war.” - I still argue he wasn’t. People like John Brown were abolitionists, they no care of going through the political process and had no interest in trying to compensate any southerner for the emancipation. Lincoln on the other hand, was willing to act on every stance that the Anti Slavery platform stood on.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “That's so wrong it literally made me stand up and walk away from my computer for a minute. If you have abolitionist preferences, you are an abolitionist.” - Once again, both Anti Slavery and Abolitionists aimed for slavery to be made illegal, the difference as mentioned was method, legal procedure, and time.
“If you opt to push for merely anti-slavery policies because you don't think people would accept abolition, you're a politician.” - An Anti Slavery politician. I’ll explain more when getting down to the quote on this point.
“This is only partially true.” - In the context of slavery, it was fully true. Now how blacks were to be treated after had contrasting views, but within the context of slavery itself. Both wanted to have it removed.
“In a famous POLITICAL statement.” - Something he acted upon before the war started. Lincoln even stated that he approved of the proposed Corwin Amendment which would of constitutionally protected slavery in the states it was already in. You can’t say Lincoln was an abolitionist when he was more than willing to make this kind of compromise with the south as a last ditch attempt to prevent secession, which would of made slavery in the southern states constitutionally protected, maybe forever from how it was seen at the time. The reason the south did not accept such a deal was because part of their reason for secession was not just preserving slavery but expanding it.
“Contemporaneous private correspondence contradicts it.” - Like?
“The letter to Horace Greeley is probably the most famous example.
"Hence why Lincoln knew he could not be an abolitionist" Why he could not ACT as an abolitionist." - And Lincoln says in that same letter, “If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” - Lincoln even in this letter openly stated that he would not prioritize abolishment over keeping the Union unified and that he disagreed with the idea that the Union should not be saved unless it freed all the slaves. That is even in the context if this letter, an Anti Slavery stance. And this was in 1862, only strengthening my argument that if Lincoln changed his mind, it wouldn’t had been till much later on.
“This is essentially the same argument broadly applied, with Lincoln as the narrow case. Whether you agree with my assessment of how to describe the people in power has no bearing whatever on whether or not I said they were unopposed. I didn't. I never said there were no conservatives in the North, or no liberals in the South. That is what you claimed, you were wrong.” - No, but you did state that the overall sides were treated that the north was predominantly liberal. What you basically implied was the opposition was in the minority.
“It literally does. The core of conservatism is the maintenance of traditional social hierarchies. Abolishing a traditional social hierarchy is as opposed to conservatism as it is possible to get.” - Not in the context of the North, since as mentioned slavery for the most part, was already gone from the north since the late 1700s to early 1800s. To them, the absence of slavery was the tradition and that the south were using an outdated economic institution since the north already were displaying more practical methods of economy.
“Northern Conservatives would want to maintain the existing status quo of the Union, which would equate to an opposition to abolition for reasons you yourself have neatly explained in this thread.” - Again I said most, most conservatives would be opposed to abolitionism. And prior to the war they were for the reasons I mentioned before. But like every issue, there were exceptions, and as the war continued the stance on slavery became more and more radical, even amongst the conservatives.
"Started as anti-slavery and became abolitionist by the mid 1850s, maybe.” - Nope, as mentioned all evidence showed that before and during the war he was exercising an Anti Slavery practice and even his own statements made clear he was not willing to go the abolitionist route before and during the earlier years of the war. You can’t try to challenge that on the pretense of “He might be lying because politicians lie.” Without evidence of words or actions that contradicts his statements, that argument is made mute.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@georgecromarty5372 "The U.S. leaders would not have hesitated to drop as many atomic bombs on Germany and Japan as it took to defeat both of them." - Except once again, Ur not looking at the political picture. The reason the US got the means for the amount of bombings in our own timeline is that the political situation allowed it. Germany and Italy were already out, Japan was alone, and was on the verge of losing anyway. Even in our own timeline, the US was only going to drop one more bomb on Japan before launching Downfall.
"That's what they meant by "unconditional surrender." - And? U realize u do not have to commit to it. The Soviets didn't as they were sending peace deals to Germany left and right.
"What you've overlooked is the fact that the Allies couldn't possibly accept anything but the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan, no matter how long it took.
Why, you ask? It's simple. If the Allies accepted anything less than an unconditional surrender (with their leaders being tried for war crimes), the Germans and Japanese would no doubt have resumed their fascistic plans to dominate the world." - Not really. Germany was not working against US interest. Germany only wanted the east and now that they have it, they have no reason and would have no desire to keep fighting Britain and USA.
"The U.S., U.K., and U.S.S.R. never would have tolerated that state of affairs." - the USSR opinion is not consequential if they already face an economic collapse.
"Even if the Americans and British decided to stop dropping atomic bombs after the top 20 German and Japanese bases and targets were vaporized," - They would not drop 20 atomic bombs. Do u have any idea how much political outcry that would create? U forget that not many knew of German crimes until after 1944 when they were already in Europe. So as far as the public knew, Germany was no different from a classical like Empire like in WW1. Once again, the notion that USA or British leaders could do that without committing political suicide is preposterous. Once again, the US and British people would not allow Nuclear Genocide.
"you forget that the Soviets developed their own A-bomb in 1949," - At the height of their power with German scientists.
"and they certainly wouldn't have hesitated to finish the job.!" - The war would end before 1949. Also the Soviets cannot develop an atomic bomb if their economy collapses.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "Yes, it does. Until the invading force has set up a state there are no property rights." - Um no, so you think people aren't going to try to defend their own property against the invaders even when the state is gone? If ur answer is no, that they would defend it. Then clearly the protection of property can and would be done without the state if needed. In fact resistance movements only further this point.
"Yes, a state absolutely does establish property rights in a way competing private companies can't, because it acts as a final arbiter." - The only reason it can "act as a final arbiter" is because it is the one carrying the largest stick, which would be no different than a security company doing the same thing. And as mentioned, what happens when the state is doing the very same thing that you claim the companies in an An Cap society would do? It is the exact same problem.
"And I'll prove it: how do you establish and maintain property rights without a state? You simply can't answer that" - I already did. Just because you refuse to accept the answer does not mean I didn't answer it. And that isn't proof, that is only stating the same question that this debate started in the first place to address. Once again "property rights" without enforcement or protection is completely arbitrary and as such holds no value on its own. If the state is unable to take my farm away from me, because I have an army greater than the state, then guess what, the state does not get the final say?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ceceliachoi3976 "I agree with your first point but you cannot tell me what triggers me and what doesn’t." - Good, then we have found some common ground which means the rest of the argument can work within the first 5 weeks or cases like rape or incest. Thanks for that btw. It means I can actually hear something new and try to develop new points since I rarely get to work with that much common ground in mind.
"but you cannot tell me what triggers me and what doesn’t." - I didn't say I did. I just said it shouldn't.
"We can stop talking on this comment section and put our own reasons out to the protests etc because I do not see the point on arguing on something we both do not agree on," - There is plenty of benefits for this. Mainly it expands the outlook on perspective. The thing is even if we fail to change each other's minds. We will understand another perspective and know some points we previously doesn't. And that actually helps us both within the protests or anywhere.
"I tried to change your perspective on this situation and you did too but I can just imagine this continuing on for weeks and it will not do anything but waste both of our time, hope you understand." - I mean its like I said before there are things to gain through it. Especially when common ground is being found. I would agree with u if we found no common ground (If u were ok all the way till birth), but u stated ur perimeters which means up until that first 5 weeks, we are on the same side here. Which means much should be discussed to further understand each other. But if u do not wish to do that, I understand. In either case, it was nice to discuss this with someone who remained civil and actually worked to use intellectual and neat points. Overall, I am quite grateful that I was able to talk with you about this. Anyways if u want to continue this discussion then feel free to let me know, otherwise, cheers and take care. Be safe from Covid and good luck within the post Covid World.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “They're not opposites per se, but most liberal ideologies are opposed to most results of most conservative ideologies, and vice versa.” - Depending on the timeframe. But that is only because given the history of society, authoritarianism was what was being conserved back then. However that has been much different today.
“So while you 'can' have conservative liberals or liberal conservatives, it is rare.” - I wouldn’t say that it is automatically rare. It is just their relevance to societies back then was somewhat small and mute.
"Lincoln wasn’t a liberal" In our previous communications I've given a definition of liberal that absolutely does apply to Lincoln, can you give a definition that doesn't?” - Liberalism definition: Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom.
"since both sides viewed the conflict as one for liberty." One side viewed the wars as for the preservation and expansion of slavery, so I'm going to go ahead and say they weren't concerned with liberty in any meaningful way.” - You are judging that by your standards. But you forget at the time, slavery as fucked up as it was, was consider part of the liberties of property rights. So once again, it was a concept of liberalism to them. I am not saying you have to agree with it, but it was viewed by that at the time.
"WW1 - you are aware that it was old fashioned Empires" “At the time, political power in Germany derived from the King. In Britain, the King had an advisory role. “ - True, but considering Britain was still a traditional empire with forced control over colonies, I doubt you could realistically call that liberal. Especially by the very logic you used to disprove the south.
“France was a republic.” - Only in name really. It still operated as a traditional empire. Yes, you could argue it was less centralized, which was great. But that didn’t change its rhetoric especially in international affairs.
“The United States was a republic.” - We only joined at the tail end of the war. So I would not associate the heavy lifting to the USA. Not to mention, Wilson was far from a freedom loving guy, just saying.
“Russia was conservative until the communists got power, but they also got completely destroyed by Germany, so saying they won would be insane.” - That we can agree.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 " I wouldn’t say that it is automatically rare." “Neither would I. Nor did I. I said it is rare, which is true. As you evidently agree.” - I agree with it being rare, but that is also dependent on what standard you hold them to.
"Liberalism definition" Free markets? Check.” - High degree of tariffs and regulations is not promoting a free market. At least not by a classical liberal standard.
“Equality under the law? Check.” - Somewhat, depends on timeframe.
“Economic and political freedom (of individuals under the law)? Check. So... that's Lincoln fitting your definition. So you can't give a definition of liberalism that doesn't fit Lincoln.” - Did you seriously ignore all the points where Lincoln directly violated these individual freedoms? Forced conscription and suspending the protections of publishing anti war media is not promoting individual freedoms bud.
" was consider part of the liberties of property rights." Not by liberals, only by conservatives. That's basically my point.” - Um no, by liberal conservatives. As mentioned the south did believe that they were operating as classical liberals against what they perceived as a overmore overreaching government. Were they correct? That is a matter of perspective. Were they hypocritical? You bet your ass they were. But that is the point. The standards were vastly different.
"but it was viewed by that at the time. " “No, it wasn't viewed as liberalism at the time.” - Yes it was. As mentioned through classical liberalism’s definition.
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics; civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on limited government, economic freedom, and political freedom.
Free Markets and laiseez- faire economics? Check.
Civil liberties under rule of law? Mainly pertaining to the property rights? Check.
Limited government? - Check, considering the south was pushing for a less centralized government than the Union, at least in theory.
Economic freedom? - Check.
Political freedom? - Check.
Now as I mentioned, the south were hypocritical on most if not all these points.
The difference between them and Lincoln in that context is that Lincoln never claimed to be a liberal. Even by his own words, he admits that the Republicans at least in a broad pov was conservative in value.
“"The chief and real purpose of the Republican Party is eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore this government to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change ... than that which the original framers of the government themselves expected and looked forward to."
Now as I mentioned, Lincoln’s standard of conservatism was very different from the southern standard.
Where you see a concept of Northern Liberalism vs Southern Conservatism, I see as two competing concepts of American Nationhood rooted in a mixture of both conservative and liberal values for both sides.
"Britain was still a traditional empire" A traditional empire was a authoritarian monarchy, which Britain was not at the time.” - It was a constitutional monarchy which still exercised imperial power with having colonies that made up almost a third of the world.
"I doubt you could realistically call that liberal." I didn't say WW1 was won by liberal utopias, I said the liberal (comparative) side won. Britain had some illiberal policies, but was more liberal than Germany.” - Comparative, is not what you claimed when responding to his other comment. And comparatively means squat. That is like saying that democracy won the Eastern front just because the Soviet Union might have been slightly more democratic than the Third Reich. See the problem with that line of thinking?
"It still operated as a traditional empire. " “Objectively wrong. France wasn't even a monarchy, so it's a nonsense to call them an empire. An empire is not merely a country with imperial policies. You understand that, right?” - Imperial structures does not automatically require the existence of a monarchy. Monarchies yes, are typically associated with Empires, but it does not require it to be considered an Empire or at the very least an Imperialist state.
1
-
@Crispr_CAS9 “That's is, objectively, an insane thing to say. To the extent that I expect it to be retracted if this conversation is to continue.” - You will expect nothing. And yes it is irrelevant in the context of WW1. Trying to compare two Empires and say one is slightly less imperialistic than the other does not change the fact that the war was started to conserve their imperial influences and power base. Nothing about that is liberal. Now if you want to make that statements on ideologies that are more specific such as Marxism vs National Socialism, or Confederation or Republic, then go for it. But to base your entire argument of “liberalism winning WW1 '' on the idea that Britain and France were only slightly less centralized in power than Germany at the time of WW1 is frankly laughable and revisionist crap.
“I'll respond to the rest, but address this first or don't bother at all.” - Just did.
"High degree of tariffs and regulations is not promoting a free market."
“American liberalism of the time saw tariffs as necessary for state funding. They also viewed 'free market' as being a interstate, not international, concern.” - No evidence to back that claim sir. Even modern conservatives to this day largely support Tariffs and the modern liberals oppose that, but even in a historical context. The party to support tariffs before the Republicans were the Federalists. The advocates of increased federal power, I doubt you can say the federalists were liberal.
"Lincoln directly violated these individual freedoms?"
“Liberalism is respect for individual freedoms UNDER THE LAW. Which Lincoln did not violate.” - The northern citizens he suppressed on anti war were under the law. Did not change what he did. Unless of course your logic is that it was legal, therefore it makes it liberal. You know like Slavery was. I don’t think I need to explain further on the holes of that logic.
“No. Sorry, you're simply wrong. There is no conception of liberalism, alone or in combination with any other ideology, that views slavery as acceptable. None.” - Again, only if you view it in a modern sense. Not classical liberalism. Now yes, I will admit that the concept of accepting slavery while preaching freedom is hypocritical. That isn’t the point though, what is was that the south absolutely viewed it as their individual rights to keep slavery around. A promotion of individual freedom. They viewed it as liberal, if you equate the concept to freedom.
"the south did believe that they were operating as classical liberals "
“They 100% did not. They loudly proclaimed themselves as conservatives.” - Which is not the opposite of liberalism and the two are not mutually exclusive! We have been over this already.
“So if Lincoln called himself a conservative and acted as a liberal,” - He didn’t act as a liberal. Your logic is freeing the slaves automatically makes him a liberal when it doesn’t!! As mentioned he had more liberal stances in some issues but more conservative stances in others. Same went for the south at least by their own logic and reasoning.
“and the South called themselves conservatives and acted as conservatives, I'm inclined to call Lincoln a liberal politician,” - You’re inclined to call nothing. I am sorry, I don’t think you reserve the right to declare Lincoln as something he clearly was not even by his own statements. Once again, protectionist policies flies in the face of free markets, arrest of people who make anti war press flies in the face of individual liberties, and his racist outlooks that he had for much of his career flies in the face of equality. Like I said, I am not suggesting Lincoln couldn’t have changed his mind on issues later on. And I am sure he did for the Blacks as the war hardened him.
“and the South conservative. Because actions matter more than statements.” - And as mentioned his actions have still proven counter. If Lincoln was a liberal, he sure as hell was a hypocritical one. And mind you even agreeing that actions matter more, that does not mean the words should not be accounted for. Especially when no actions contradict it.
“ In which the monarch essentially had no actual power. Unlike the Germans, where the monarch had significant power.” - True, but you would find even that changed during the war. And the policies were still rather comparable to one another. And the British Empire had the parliament since 1688. And gave reforms to promote the middle class into voting in 1833. Barely shorter timeframe than the Americans having slavery legal. And I doubt the form of government that had remained mostly consistent for a period of 81 years could be called liberal if you were basing the concept on change.
"Imperial structures does not automatically require the existence of a monarchy. "
“I'll take this as a demonstration that you don't know the difference between 'imperial' and 'empire'. An empire is necessarily a monarchy. By definition.” - German Third Reich. Reich was German for Empire and the Nazis did not have a monarch in any way shape or form. Empires typically had monarchies but it was not required to fit the rest of its definition. Which called upon an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority.
“A non-monarchal political structure could engage in imperial actions, but could NEVER be an empire.” - Tell that to Hitler.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "And once the recount was done, the Democrats conceded. Unlike Trump, they didn't start all kinds of insane conspiracy theories and mount endless court cases." - You and I must remember the whole "Russia tampered with the election" conspiracy very differently.
"You are just totally incapable of honesty, aren't you?" - Says the one who literally cannot even be consistent with your own definitions.
"Given the circumstances"
The circumstances of idiots listening to liars." - Nope. Of course I can call you the whole "Russia tampered with election" conspiracy theory. But that would be taking the easy way out.
"Trump absolutely did not go willingly, you complete cretin." - So someone arrested and forced him out of office? No? Then he did willfully stepped down. He still did his farewell speech and still passed the torch. He may not had been happy about it.
"Did your mother drink heavily when she was pregnant with you?" - Fuck off. You were a damn failed abortion. Fuck you! No I am done with your bullshit. You know why? Because you try redefining terms that don't suit your definition, try subscribing to Marxist concept of capitalism, argue workers being enslaved despite being able to leave anytime they want, attempted gaslighting multiple times, tried to argue that something is private just because there are restricted things for use, and literally contradict the very definition you tried to use against me. Yet you are going to try to put this kind of insult on me? You got a lot of nerve. It's clear you are not passed the age of 12 because if you were, it would be easy for you to understand basic concepts.
"Because you really are the most dimwitted person on the entire internet." - Ha, ever looked into the mirror?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Every one of you complaining about vaccine mandates seem to forget one thing. Not a single one of you, NOT ONE, when you were kids, could go to school without your childhood vaccines!" - Publically owned schools are not the same as jobs bud. Private schools still existed.
"We don't have polio pandemics, flu pandemics since the 1918 flu pandemic, chicken pox pandemics, small pox pandemics, typhoid pandemics because of what? Vaccines! I don't know if there's an Ebola vaccine but we don't have that. Stop being a pansy and get the shot and booster. Then you can quit griping about not being allowed in places and keeping your job." - Um nope. Sorry if people don't want to take it, thats their right and choice. U don't get to try to discriminate on them over it. And many business owners don't care if they are vaccinated or not, the government is trying to call the shots. Not the owners, not the states.
1
-
@lisanidog8178 "so let me see if I understand you. Telling you to mask or stay out, no test or vax to keep fellow employees safe is discrimination?" - When done in a government level, yes.
"Well boo hoo on those people who couldn't care less about spread. Comply or leave." - And where do u expect them to go? Getting fired from one job is not the same as not being able to get any, and then what? Crime becomes a tempting option after that point.
"Enough of the coddling! Shame we can't jail those who refuse to help get rid of the virus by vaxxing, boostering social distancing, testing, masking." - Wow so by ur logic, anyone who refuses to Vax, boost, mask, or social distance is a criminal? Wow, sounds like u would have to arrest 90% of the US population. Looks like I'm a criminal by ur logic. Because I vaxxed, but I will not be taking boosters.
"Many business owners DO care whether you're vaccinated! Or masked! Or tested! And they will fire you if you're not." - Ok and that is their choice. I respect their choice just as u should respect the ones that DON'T care.
"Dead employees don't make money." - 97% survival rate.
"Dead customers don't buy what business is selling." - 97% survival rate.
"The ones who don't care will soon learn their customers will go elsewhere so they don't get sick." - And that is the customers choice. The natural market will take care of itself, but instead everything is going Big Brother.
"A global pandemic isn't political. It's health." - Which when weaponized in an attempt to control people even in violation of their own constitutional rights, it is political. You can't force treatment. You cannot force a jab anymore than u can force kimo on a cancer patient.
"Obviously you can't tell the difference. The virus sure as heck doesn't care." - Yep, its called a virus and at this point government meddling has done more damage than even the virus itself at this point. Also ironic that with the vaccine and coming mandates more people died this year than in 2020 when we had none of that.
"And everyone else is sick and tired of overwhelmed hospitals full of sick unvaxxed who take beds away from patients with non Covid illnesses like car accidents, maternity care, heart attacks." - And sure we can agree there, if they took the risk, they shouldn't go the hospital.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisanidog8178 "and that debunks all the stupidity of anti vaxxers who say the vaccines don't work!" - Very few say it does not work at all, just that its not anywhere near as effective as people try to claim.
"Despite getting vaxxed and boosted I don't relax any safety measures! And I haven't caught Covid! It doesn't want me because I still don't give it an opportunity." - Ignoring that some people just get lucky.
"My immune system is jacked up with the vaccine that will recognize any variant." - Ignoring I did the same thing and still caught it bud, so its not as jacked as u think.
"If I don't need to go out I stay home! And yes, sir! I'm alive and well because I'm vaxxed and boosted, maintain social distancing, don't travel, don't mingle in big crowds and although masking is no longer mandated I still carry it just in case that no mask no entry sign goes up even when vaxxed." - So basically not living a real life. Good to know. And u know what? Thats ur choice. Many people here myself included are not anti vaccers, we are anti mandate.
"That's my "And?"! Anti vaxxers will do none that! No safety measures! They're terrified of a needle. I rest my case." - They ain't terrified of anything. Dude at this point its the government they don't trust. Not the shot itself. Back before these mandates even became a thing, most were willing to line up and take it. Nowadays, do u really think any mandate isn't going to reinforce their distrust? If they were not convinced before, they aren't going to be when u figuratively point a gun at their head.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "State bureaucrats ARE private people taking the profit." - State bureaucrats are not private though. A state by definition falls under the public domain, not private. They are using the public enterprise to personally benefit.
"No, you failed hilariously in trying to show that Capitalism can exist without a state. The idea of competing judges in a free market simply leads to either whoever pays most getting the result they want, or competing judgements that cannot be resolved." - Again I never said I believed in the system but a most basic question that u need to honestly ask yourself is do you really think a state does proper enforcement through actual legal righteousness or is it because more often than not they carry the biggest gun? The irony is if you looked by to ancient kingdoms where state police and military couldn't be everywhere, often people would be forced to either defend their own property on their own or hire someone to do so for them.
"Now then, when you claimed MCM CMC "did not apply" under state Capitalism, despite your subsequent claim that it applies everywhere, did you do it from stupidity, ignorance, dishonesty, or all three?" - I admit to being wrong about this subsequent claim, what would of been more accurate is it doesn't apply exclusively under it or a capitalist model. Or are you going to delude yourself into thinking state bureaucrats in socialist regimes didn't benefit?
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "No under a collective, there is no exploitation by way of extracting surplus value as there is no employer extracting said value." - Really, because I already asked a question about this before, if the collective votes to take the wealth of one of its members, how is that not the collective exploiting that individual?
"Profit is shared amongst the collective." - And as mentioned before, collective exploitation is still a thing.
"Once again you have NO IDEA what you're talking about." - Not really.
"And I only identified Russia as state capitalist, so once again, you are lying." - Where did I lie? I asked you before and you dodged my question. If your logic applies to the Soviet Union being "State Capitalist," What about Mao's China, North Korea, etc? And if they aren't what separates them? Of course if you purposely start dodging questions I am going to begin assumptions after that point.
"As for your final paragraph - what on earth makes you think that pointing out state Capitalism exists means a person thinks Lenin was far right?" - Because apparently if Hitler was far right, for his supposevively "State capitalism" Why would the same not be true of Lenin?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@gilayahmcintosh8766 "to answer your question, it does not equate the same. Usually when a child that’s walking this earth is killed it hurts the parents and the family. But if the mother is choosing to terminate the pregnancy there is most likely emotional pain at all. And the only people who are upset are the people who has nothing to do with her decision."
Too an extent yes, except as of right now, not even family members or even the father can legally stop her. So there are still basis of those getting upset over a decision that may affect them. Also the other problem with this is that it would insert that the child being wanted determines their worth as a human being, implying the notion that killing a 6 year old would be fine if no one wanted said 6 year old. I doubt u intended this outcome, but this is a gap within ur logic.
"Also I never meant or said that pro-lifers are stupid. And I am sorry if it came off that way."
I appreciate your apology and I will also apologize if I came across as aggressive to you.
"Also back to my point about abortion still happening. pro- lifers are all about life but by making abortion not safe the death rates will double because unsafe abortions will most likely kill the more with the baby."
This retreats back to my previous statement. America has offered enough alternatives to negate the need for abortion and I myself advocate for even more to be done. Now with this basis, not to sound cold. But there is a point where sympathy does end when they are willing to risk their own life just to kill their offspring. So even in a scenario where it did not create the desired results, it wouldn't change my mind because it is about the principle as well. Even though like I said, there is enough evidence that making abortion illegal would not have such drastic effects in the US or any first world country for that matter. And honestly, making abortion illegal would more than likely decrease pregnancy rates as it would force couples to either reconsider their sexual actions or at the very least take far more precautions. Did u know as of right now, statistics show that 46% of women that do abortions admit to not using any birth control or contraceptives and even within the 54% that did, many did not use them correctly or consistently.
"And maybe I haven’t thought of everything but this is my belief and I stand by it. Think what you want and I will do the same. Clearly neither of us are convincing which is right so can we just shake hands and call it a day? This is to of being redundant and pointless."
If u wish to do so yes. But if u wish to have this political war end, these discussions are the way to do it. Contrary to what u may think. I have no aggressive intentions to use against u because u actually remind me much of my younger self. So please understand that my positioning is to have u understand what took me too long to figure out on my own. Again the question needs to be brought up why 15 minutes of pleasure is worth the life of an entirely new human being. Because that is what it comes down too. Take many of the European countries that have more welfare and social safety nets than most yet even their abortions do not stop because the excuses done to justify it aren't the reasons for people wanting it. It is more often than not because they want engage freely in sexual intercourse without the risk of any consequence. I am not saying this is ur reason. But it is the primary drive for the majority of pro choice whether they realize it or not. Why do u think people say when they are scared of having their girlfriends pregnant after sex that they feel good having abortion as an option. Because they do not want that responsibility that comes with sexual intercourse. Ironically this is also why more men are pro choice and more women are pro life according to 2019 poll statistics.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 I already showed you the original quote. You dumbass. You keep asserting something that not only wasn’t my original quote. But something that isn’t even relevant. You have been harboring on this for 3 months. Move on. It’s been addressed several times. It’s not productive to the debate and you are only repeating it as a desperate attempt to pull a gotcha. Ignoring that again. It never was the original quote.
This is the last time I’m posting the original quote to you.
“"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marart926 "I never said a fetus did not have living cells, but it cant live until it becomes a baby."
U mean live independently. But as we already discussed, u cannot judge it based on viability without condemning other people to the same principle. Category 2: Invalid
"what's a baby. A human with an independent body, whereas a fetus, clump of cells, is dependent inside and attached, therefore is part of a woman's, not alive with rights."
Baby definition: a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
Nowhere does it mention an independent body. Why? Because it already has a seperate body. It is just not a body that can survive on its own. Also yes it is alive. U cannot say it is dependent to be alive and then a sentence later not call it alive. That is contradicting. Also ironically it does have rights considering in some states, a man can be charged with homicide for punching a pregnant woman in the gut and causing a miscarriage meaning even the government recognizes the unborn child as a separate human being. Category 2: Invalid.
"I can debate more if you want but I won't play the circular reasoning game. Sorry if I didn't explain clearly in my posts about my side of the debate. I'm not really arguing but I like to read and listen to what ppl think even though it's a controversial topic."
"I'm pro choice. Ppl are against the death penalty because ppl dont want the government to control life and death. I personally think ppl should have life and death over themselves that includes a fetus. That's why its CHOICE."
Nowhere does it say u didn't want people to argue with u on the matter. Also I am sorry but if u comment in a controversial video on a controversial topic then u should more than prepared for counter arguments. That is the point of comment threads. And at the end of the day this is an argument u have now chosen to partake in. I appreciate the respect u have given me and I would like to believe I am doing the same for u which is why I am not resorting to insults. But I will say based on the previous statements above, u are being intellectually dishonest and u are falling into a lot of logical gaps. Which is not ur fault. Every pro choice member falls into that. Its why I want to make it clear, I am not coming at u from a position of malice but from a position of desperation for u to see pass what the left has lied to u about. Since I won't lie. I once bought into them. I use to be a pro choice member when I was younger. So understand, the arguments u are trying to make against me are almost the same as the arguments I once used. I'm sorry but sometimes it takes learning lessons the hard way to realize that killing innocence for convenience is morally wrong. Trust me, I took a while to learn that. So spare ur self from the time I had to take. I can't force u to value something. But u need to at least understand and accept what an abortion actually is. It is not a passive medical procedure done to protect woman's bodies in 99% of cases. It is a procedure that kills for lifestyle convenience and if u think about it actually devalues women more than a pro life stance ever could.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "1) It may have escaped your notice, but Germany wasn't in great condition after WW1. Some historians say that was a contributing factor to WW2.."
1. Some could say that. But others don't. Because ironically despite the handicaps Germany had within the interwar period, it actually amounted to have a military advantage over the allies during the first 3 years from 1939-1941. Ironically later in the war is when they suffered where I doubt the interwar years played a factor by that point. Especially when Germany's if only disadvantages did not exist during the time the war was shifting against them.
"2) There would be no economic interest in resisting. Simply take the most money to guarantee your customer the best outcome. What's yours is mine, if I can afford it.
That's free market capitalism, baby! A few mega corporations monetising everything and the rest of us fighting for the scraps." - This does not really hold much truth when put under scrutiny. Again there have been many cases of resisting over economic interest. The American Revolutionary war started over economic interests, mainly that the British were using heavy taxation and cutting off the colonists ability to expand west, something that they fought the last war (French and Indian War) to be able to do. French Revolution started based on economic factors as well. Civil War occurred for a similar reason. When slavery was in threat of being taken away, something that the south's economy heavily relied on, it resulted in them attempting to succeed. Hell even Lenin's revolution can be considered a form of economic resistance as it was done to overthrow the Monarch who in an economic sense was taking advantage of his own people.
"That's free market capitalism, baby! A few mega corporations monetising everything and the rest of us fighting for the scraps." - Except that is not the case, ironically corporate power actually becomes more common the more a state is involved. Why do you think corporations often weaponize state policy to get what they want? Its because they know it is extremely unlikely for them to obtain it through natural economic means.
And this highlights your entire argument only speaks from the position of an anti capitalist. And given previous connotation you have, it's not difficult to believe that you are a Marxist Socialist or at the very least sympathetic to it. And I correct?
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "Yes, it is.
The Vietnamese and their allies proved themselves stronger than the US in that theatre," - Except they didn't. US outnumbered and outgunned the Vietnamese. The reason the Vietnamese won was done because of their tactics, home-field advantage, and the US home front turning against the war. Only an idiot would think that the Vietnamese were stronger. Or that the American rebels were stronger than the British. They weren't, but they had enough logistical advantages going for them and utilized good enough of what they had that it all eventually stacked up and made victory possible. You don't always win a war by being more powerful, often it is won by being smarter and having an easier war objective than your opponent.
"which is why the latter had to run away with their tail between their legs while the rest of the world laughed.
You clueless dimwit." - Again, the US did leave the war. And by all accounts lost. But again, only an idiot would think that literal farmers with rifles makes a more powerful military than highly trained soldiers. They don't. Again, they were able to capitalize their strengths and had enough going for them to make victory possible.
"The French and Russian militaries were a key part of those revolutions.
All of which resulted in STATES." - States were made post revolution. That isn't the point, the point is your misguided belief that the state has some divine right or purpose when in reality like an individual or security force is just an instrument of power that can be defeated.
"You are so clueless it's painful. See your assertion that employees "absolutely control their means of production" because one day they might win the lottery and buy a factory." - U still on about that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Don't be coy. I’m pointing out to Sandra how she’s trying to have her cake and eat it too by insisting that all life is valuable from conception while either ignoring (or simply being ignorant of) the inconvenient implications of such a viewpoint.” - Such as?
“Women are undeniably human beings' intrinsic value, correct? And yet you’re quite willing to sacrifice the human rights of women in favor of fetuses,” - I’m sorry, it isn’t a right to tear apart another human being and suck their remains in a vacuum.
“whose status and value as human beings is debatable at best.” - Less than a century ago, there was debate if a Black person held value. Does that mean they shouldn’t had been legally protected?
“If you can’t even respect the lives and rights of born human beings, why should I trust your alleged concern for fetuses as human beings?” - Firstly, I do respect the lives of all innocent human beings. That is why we are having this conversation. And unless you are referring to the extreme anomaly cases, a woman’s life is not in any serious risk from having that child. Secondly, I have to mention above, you would need to make a case how a deliberate termination of another human being to undo a mistake she and her spouse themselves made is in any way, shape, or form a right.
“Except abortion isn’t murder. That is, unless the anti-abortion movement keeps changing the definition of murder to suit their argument.” - Murder is the premediated killing of another human being. So explain to me how abortion does not align with that definition.
“I’m afraid it has to be since the idea that abortion policies ought to be influenced on the grounds of how good for humanity somebody MIGHT turn out to be is absurd is ridiculous. Your argument cuts both ways.” - Except I never made that argument to begin with. I never said they would or wouldn’t be good. I said it should not be our decision to make for the child. The only one who can decide whether or not they would be good or bad is the individual him or herself. You don’t get to punish people for a crime they might do in 30 years.
“Priceless. Instead of helping others in your camp to word their arguments better (hence why I asked that question afterward), you go after low-hanging fruit and accuse others of trolling and “playing semantic games.” - I accused Micheal of trolling, and if you have seen some of the garbage that came out of his mouth, you would agree. Problem is though, you won’t because that does not suit your agenda. That logic cuts both ways.
“I knew what Sandra meant, but you just assumed I didn't know because it fits your neat and tidy narrative of pro-choice advocacy.” - It isn’t a matter of assumption. It is a matter of why say it when you know what he meant? If you didn’t you could have simply corrected the statement instead of being sarcastic about it.
“But I digress.” - Fair enough.
"An individual human being starts at conception"?
“This is begging the question. What is an "individual human being"?” - Well in the most basic basis, a member of the homosapien species, aka human species. The individual is from the fact that he or she is genetically their own being with a unique genetic code separated from the mother or father.
“Who determines what this is using what criteria? Perhaps a potential human being gets its start at conception, but the fact that human life is a continuum makes even this equivocal.” - And here lies a problem with that premise, because the same argument could be used for those after born. Who is to say a newborn is a “real” human being rather than a potential one. Hell you are aware males for example don’t stop developing till 21, so are you saying that they have to reach the end of development to count? Without a greater degree of context, this type of argumentation is haphazard at best.
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “The vast majority of the time, the woman voluntarily did what it takes to make a baby.”
“And in all of those instances, the woman took measures to prevent that from happening. Apparently, the only time you think intent doesn’t matter is when a pregnancy is the result.” - You don’t intend to run someone over with a car, but you are still held responsible for their injury or death if fault is attributed back to you. Same concept.
“Except having sex for purposes other than creating a child isn’t an immoral or unethical act,” - No, but it is one that comes with a set of consequences that said mother needs to be prepared for. Sometimes when you gamble, you lose your money.
“so there’s no need for any consequences. That you insist there should be consequences shows that you want to treat parenthood as a punishment.” - Whether or not you feel there is a need for consequence does not change there naturally is one. Parenthood isn’t punishment, but it is a responsibility placed as a result of your own choices.
“Innocent” means you did not commit a crime or offense. A fetus that's using your body without your consent is guilty of violating this human right.” - Not necessarily, one from a biological perspective, it isn’t using your body against its will.
“It doesn’t matter if you intend to commit a crime or offense for you to be considered guilty; what matters is that the crime is happening. If you think that sounds ridiculous, consider this: If you want a fetus to have equal rights, then with those same rights come the same restrictions as their born counterparts, including the restriction that you can’t use somebody else’s body against their will, in part or in whole, for any amount of time, even if doing so would save somebody’s life.” - And this creates a problem if you want consistency. If a human being is guilty of a crime that is worthy of the death penalty from the moment you come into existence, then that would create the notion that every human being is guilty and as such the state would reserve the right to kill us at any point for whatever reason. Also I think you fail to grasp that a removal is not the same as a deliberate termination.
“And yet you don’t see it wrong to not only blame people for experiencing an unintended consequence from engaging in a moral good,” - Sex is not a moral good. You can argue for it not being a moral evil, but the act in it of itself is not any act of moral right. Especially when carried out without commitment or responsibility.
“but to want to punish them for it as well. Nice double standard.” - Parenthood and ensuring the life of the child is not punishment, it is responsibility. And just like child negligence laws exist, or the draft exists. Sometimes you will not be granted the option to opt out of it. Ironically pro life is ok with those opting out until it involves the deliberate killing of the child.
“You're basically arguing that by merely choosing to have sex, with or without contraception, a woman becomes responsible for having a child.” - They become responsible for not killing it, and given again the existence of child negligence laws, yes. They are responsible for that child until they are able to pass it to someone else. Who else would be held responsible? No one else aside from the mother and father created that child.
“That's an argument that has everything to do with judging people’s sexual behavior, and nothing to do with the value of preborn life.” - Responsibility isn’t judgment. You’re not judged for losing a gamble, you are judged for not honoring the wager.
“Not necessarily. Sex education is so poor in the United States that many teens become sexually mature without understanding what causes what.” - Which is agreeable should be improved upon.
“But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the woman knew what she was doing and was being careless or stupid. This presents a conundrum. You think a woman isn’t responsible enough to avoid sex and pregnancy, but they’re somehow responsible enough to have that unwanted child and raise it for at least 18 years? Now, you could argue that she could just place the newborn up for adoption, but that’s not a solution either. Women have abortions for many reasons, and adoption doesn’t address all of them.” - It does address most. If the concern is having to raise the kid, they wouldn’t. The kid upon delivery or even in C section could be taken to foster care.
“So here we get down to the nitty-gritty. In your view, a woman decided to have sex, so she MUST suffer the consequences.” - Not suffer, accept. You fail to address that not all consequences are bad. A consequence is simply an effect. Sometimes consequences are good, sometimes bad, and sometimes neutral.
“She MUST be punished for that decision. Newsflash: A woman's decision to have sex does not entail consent for conceive,” - It actually is.
“gestate, and give birth.” - Once again, it is on them to take responsibility until someone else can.
“That you think it does shows that you only care about controlling women’s reproductive choices. That’s ironic coming from a woman.” - Not really, the fact it is coming from another woman means you can’t even make the sexist fallacies often shown by extreme pro choice advocates. Maybe the fact plenty of women support pro life should be proof that it isn’t simply about controlling other people. Of course that would require some degree of sincerity from pro-choicers.
“If you want to continue with a pregnancy, that’s your choice. But you need to let other people make their own choices regarding their pregnancy, including the choices that you don’t agree with.” - You mean the deliberate killing of an unborn child? No thanks.
“Don’t like it? That’s the price you pay for living in a free country.” - Don’t like rape? That is the price of living in a free country. Don’t like theft? That’s the price you pay for living in a free country? Also even disregarding the obvious comparisons above I could argue it in reverse. Don’t like being held responsible for your own child? That is the price you pay for living in a free country. It isn’t just free for you, it is free for your child.
“Yes, it does. Not being guilty of doing anything wrong isn’t the same thing as not being culpable, and a fetus is very much culpable in an unwanted pregnancy.” - By that logic, you are putting blame on another human being for simply existing. I don’t even think I need to get into why that is a ridiculous notion.
“Ask any credible lawyer, and they’ll tell you that “Not guilty” isn’t the same thing as “Innocent.” - By definition, innocent means being not guilty of any crime.
“That’s not what I’m arguing here. Stillborn children aren’t valuable since their continued existence inside a woman’s womb is dangerous to their health.” - No, their lives are valuable. But just as in certain situations you can only save one life or the other, does not mean the other life isn’t valuable. Yes in cases of medical complications, the mother’s life would be prioritized, especially given the child would be likely to die with her if she did. That does not mean the life of the child isn’t valuable. It is making the most logical choice within an emergency and extreme situation.
“Ironically, abortion bans after 15-20 weeks (when virtually all stillbirths happen) have made an already difficult and painful experience even harder, more traumatic, and more dangerous for everyone involved. Hope it was worth it.” - You mean after the point where a child becomes viable? Funny how you pro abortion members hold no bounds. Let me kill my child now, because he or she might die later.
“Since (a) euthanasia for cancer patients who requested it is a thing, and (b) we don’t call it “murder” when doctors go through with it, this argument is immaterial.” - Wrong on both counts if you are referring to the USA. The United States in most parts of the country has Mercy Killing illegal. So even that logic falls flat if you wish to remain consistent. And that is not even going into the notion that just because something is allowed to happen does not mean it is moral to do. And thirdly, it is not a one for one comparison since nowhere did the Fetus display a will to die. In fact nearly all evidence has shown the contrary.
“That just means it’s valuable to you. You need to understand that you live in a world where everybody’s opinion regarding their unborn child’s life is valid, including the ones that don’t see an unwanted child as “valuable.” Both of these reactions to a fetus may even occur in the same woman, years apart.” - Um once again, if you wish to remain consistent. Arguing that an unborn child does not have intrinsic value just because he or she may not be valued by the mother could be just as applied to a child after birth. Opinions differ for children after birth. Also the validity on a life is not conditional if said life is “wanted” or not. Otherwise by that logic, the Nazis had every right to murder the Jews since the Jew weren’t “wanted.”
“I have a baby sister who was stillborn and I still celebrate her birthday every single year.”
“That’s very sweet of you. I really mean that.
Likewise, there are women who can’t wait to get rid of their stillborn and move on with their lives. Yours isn’t the only valid reaction to a stillbirth, and diversity of reactions isn’t a valid reason to criminalize abortion.” - Once again ignoring that this is an anomaly case, just because the mother may not value her child does not constitute a right to kill said child.
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Again, that’s not what I’m arguing here.
Like stillbirths, ectopic pregnancies aren’t valuable to the pregnant woman since they are fatal to both her and the fetus, something that you seem to agree with.
Moving on.” - Already addressed this point above. Not being able to save both and prioritizing one life over the other does not mean the other life does not hold value. You keep trying to treat the value of a human life as a zero sum game. When in most cases it isn’t.
“Calling an unborn baby a parasite to to justify killing it is wrong.”
“That just means it’s wrong to you.
Look, it’s not my intent to disparage fetuses with the negative connotations of the word “parasite”. As a matter of fact, parasites and their hosts often enjoy mutually supportive relationships, and this obviously includes most pregnancies.” - If the symbiotic relation provides positive effects to both parties, it is by definition not a parasitic relationship. It is a form of mutualism which is a different symbiotic relationship. Something that has been proven since some of the stem cells a Fetus has is transferred to the mother, allowing her to heal faster than normal. And that is just one example.
“However, the parasitic relationship of a fetus to a woman means that its continued existence requires her continued consent, and if she continues the pregnancy unwillingly, her rights and bodily integrity are violated.” - Um once again, it isn’t a parasitic relationship. Clearly you are not getting that there is more than one symbiotic relationship.
Commensalism: an association between two organisms in which one benefits and the other derives neither benefit nor harm.
Mutualism: symbiosis that is beneficial to both organisms involved.
Parasitism is a close relationship between species, where one organism, the parasite, lives on or inside another organism, the host, causing it some harm, and is adapted structurally to this way of life.
A Fetus, mother relationship is by definition a form of mutualism since both parties benefit from the arrangement.
“So why would you want a woman that you know is going to suffer during an unwanted pregnancy to be forced to continue it against her will,” - You don’t know she would suffer, unless you equate suffering with the premise of it being unwanted alone. And no one is forcing her to continue anything, forbidding a deliberate termination is not forcing anything.
“especially since any pregnancy can result in life-threatening or painful and debilitating complications?” - Another anomaly fallacy. Less than 1% of all abortion cases were done based on life threatening.
“When suffering can be alleviated, there is simply no reason not to do so… that is, unless punishment is the desired consequence.” - Or when alleviating it would require the suffering, harm, or destruction of someone else.
“I’m afraid it has to be that way since the idea that a single diploid cell is “innocent” is weird. Again, the squirrel that bit you and the rock that hit you aren’t guilty of what we interpret as bad. But you wouldn’t call them “innocent” either, would you?” - I mean, yes you would. Of course I find it funny how people try to make comparisons with animals but hey, that is on them.
“It makes no sense to say they were even on that spectrum. Likewise, a fetus is also not on that innocent/guilty spectrum. It doesn’t have the capacity to be in that spectrum.” - Once again, says who?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge
“I don’t understand what you mean by the “validity of the [unborn] child’s life.” - Basically people trying to deny him or her as a valid human being.
“Could you elaborate on this?” - Sure.
“For the rest of your question, I would argue that a “right to life” doesn't entail a right to use somebody else's body against their will, in part or in whole, for any amount of time. For example, we have the right to refuse to donate our organs, even if doing so would save somebody else's life.” - I would not necessarily say entitled, but the parents would be held responsible. A more accurate comparison would be, would you not be held responsible if you caused someone to get hospitalized say through running them over with a car and you could have saved them through a blood transfusion or organ donation and chose not to, which in turn would cause that individual to die. Should the person who caused the predicament in the first place not be held responsible that they caused the death of another human being especially when the option existed to save them?
“On using the word “convenience”… I see little (if any) evidence that pregnancy and raising children are merely an inconvenience.” - I will admit I am stating that as a simplification. But I am mainly referring to cases not out of medical necessity.
“At the same time, we don’t call other major life-changing events and decisions as an inconvenience.” - You would be surprised.
“In short, using such a word plays down pregnancy and inflicts guilt instead of offering compassion, even if it wasn't intended.” - I want to make clear the goal isn’t to inflict guilt, but rather make a distinguishment. Also while I would argue that there are exceptions, the argument of “What if I am not ready?” Does come across as a convenience.
“Let's say a chef accidentally causes a grease fire on the stove they’re working with and sustains major burns to their arms and face. Without surgery, they won't heal right and they'll be disfigured for the rest of their life. The accident was [undeniably] their fault for not being more careful, but should they be denied treatment for their burn damage because of that?” - Not a direct equivalence. I never said treatments should never be provided at all, I asked why should it be done at the expense of someone else’s life? The child coming into existence is the fault of no one but the respective parents in questions within 98% of all cases. So when it is clearly the fault of the parents for creating the situation, why should the child be punished for it?
“Should they "accept the consequences" for what they did by not going to the hospital to reverse their injuries as much as possible?” - Once again, not a one for one comparison. Going to the hospital in the case of getting a burnt injury is not directly harming anyone else. Now let's phrase it in a way that is more accurate? The Chef got himself burnt and the only current available treatment in that moment was a bottle of aloe that is in the hands of someone else, should that individual have a right to kill that other individual to get that aloe?
“As far as consequences are concerned, I ask you: Should people be denied medical treatment for any other scenario, even if they caused it to themselves?” - If it is being carried out with the intention of directly harming another human being? Yes.
“I don’t. I have no opinion about the line and am content with leaving it up to experts. Not only that, legislatures make these kinds of distinctions all the time—in fact, in the hundreds of jurisdictions around the world where abortion is regulated (now including the U.S.), they already have.” - Ok and I think you already know a counter I am going to throw. A. By setting that, are you suggesting you would have no care for how much or little it is regulated so as long as it came from the government? Secondly, something that has been enabled legally does not reflect what is always right morally. If we applied that kind of logic to another issue like slavery back in the 1860s, we might be seeing a very different USA rn.
1
-
@MichaelAronson No it ain't. Literally google the definition.
Oxford: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
Merriam-Webster: something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified :
Dictionary. Cambridge: a person or thing that is different from what is usual, or not in agreement with something else and therefore not satisfactory:
Dictionary Website:
a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
an anomalous person or thing; one that is abnormal or does not fit in:
With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.
an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.
an incongruity or inconsistency.
Astronomy. a quantity measured in degrees, defining the position of an orbiting body with respect to the point at which it is nearest to or farthest from its primary.
Meteorology. the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.
None of these definitions mention that it a concept that cannot be explained. Also nice try at lying through your teeth. Once again, when did I ever say I was ok with pregnant people dying?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Keep in mind, I'm doing my best to keep your points brief by addressing them as broadly and encompassing as possible.” - Ok.
“I don’t deny that the fetus is a human being. I just find that it’s irrelevant in the abortion debate. Common law has consistently held that its citizens are under no legal obligation to take action to save another human being—in fact, the law can’t even compel you to donate organs against your will, even if doing so would save somebody’s life (McFall v. Shimp, 1978). You would have to literally ignore such a legal precedent in order to justify your position.” - As I mentioned, that would only be the case in a neutral situation. If you are the direct cause that would put someone else in the position where they would need something from you to live, sure you can technically say no. But if you do and the individual dies, you would be held responsible for that.
“We already hold people responsible for crimes – it’s called a trial by a jury of your peers and (if found guilty) subsequent sentencing. But I find such comparisons to be all-purpose, throwaway scenarios that merely beg the question as to why abortion should be treated as a crime.” - For the simple reason that it is deliberately terminating the life of another innocent human being.
“You don’t seem to understand that an abortion isn't on every woman’s bucket list, and there are a lot of factors in a pregnant woman’s life that goes into her deciding to get an abortion that you’re not going to be privy to. Assuming that the overwhelming majority of abortions are sought out of convenience is incredibly narrow-minded.” - Once again, you need to understand what would be classified as a convenience in this situation. I am not saying pregnancy is easy, nor did I say complications can’t arise, but the comparison to a literal child being torn apart and sucked to a vacuum cleaner would comparatively have most fall under that branch. Finances are not an excuse to take another human life, nor is “not being ready.”
“Since analogies are not meant to be a direct equivalent, you’re missing the point of my chef analogy (for example, your rewriting of my analogy equivocates what is undeniably a crime with a medical procedure which isn't inherently a crime). I’m using an analogy to deconstruct the idea of withholding medical treatment from people because they engaged in admittedly risky behavior which ended up altering their lives.” - You’re missing what I am saying. Sex isn’t a crime, but the act of deliberately taking the life of another human being to undo the consequences of sex are, or at least should be.
“Unborn children are beyond the spectrum of morality and cannot do right or wrong. Abortion doctors do not intend to condemn the fetus for any wrongdoing since no wrongdoing could have ever occurred.” - The act of deliberate termination is essentially condemning them for death, as it is essentially placing fault on the child for simply existing.
“The goal of an abortion is not to harm the fetus – it’s to terminate a pregnancy.” - No it is to harm the Fetus. You are aware that the Fetus is terminated before a removal is even attempted. If it was simply about ending the pregnancy early without carrying out harm to the fetus, then a simple C Section like removal would be done, not the actions carried out in an abortion procedure.
“The fact that a non-viable fetus (when over 90% of abortions take place) cannot survive independently of its mother's body is, if anything, just an unfortunate fact of biology.” - Which is dishonest of how an abortion procedure operates. It is absolutely carried out with the intention to harm the child. In fact many of the pro choice politicians shot down a bill that pro lifers made that would of had children who survived an abortion procedure be legally protected to under go the same care and standards that a normal born baby would have.
“Even if people behave irresponsibly, we don't deny them medical treatment in any other situation.” - If the treatment is being carried out through directly harming another human being, it would be denied. You don’t get to hurt or kill someone else to undo the consequences of your own choices.
“By saying "Yes," you're not being pro-life -- you're being pro-punishment. Calling it "accepting responsibility" doesn't change its function as a punishment.” - It’s function isn’t a punishment. The action of pregnancy nor having a child is meant to be punitive, quite the contrary. But the thing is, accepting responsibility and taking responsibility is not punishment.
“The government can regulate abortion as much as it pleases, but it would be a waste of their time. Historical and contemporary data consistently show that women will seek abortions at about the same rate regardless of its legal status. It's just a fact of human civilization that women will seek abortions even when they're illegal.” - I will be the first to ask what data you are using for that.
“Having extensively studied U.S. history, I was never convinced by those who compare abortion to slavery. If anything, the slavery analogy is more consistent with the pro-life position, especially since (a) slave owners forced their slaves to give birth (sometimes after raping them), and (b) the most pro-slavery states in the Antebellum South are nowadays the most anti-abortion states.” - I would argue otherwise. Both are based on a basis of denying the validity of a human being and constituting the right to do what one wants with said being. Both are being defended on the grounds of the government not interfering with some basis of freedom and rights, despite the fact neither were constitutional rights. While slaves were made to reproduce, that was done so with the clear intention of themselves and the child being treated as cattle and the humanity of that child was denied to begin with. Also I don’t think it is accurate to compare the Antebellum South today, to the slave owners that existed there almost 2 centuries ago.
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “Remember, we’re trying to avoid another Gish gallop.” - Such as?
* * *
“1. You can’t be held legally responsible for not donating your body against your will, in part or in whole, to somebody else who needs it, even if doing so would save somebody else’s life. You’re free to volunteer, but you can’t be legally compelled. Otherwise, what's the point of bodily sovereignty?” - But you can be held responsible if your actions is what caused that person to necessitate saving in the first place. Take an example, if a man ran over someone with a car and that person went to the hospital, the doctor says the only way for the ran over person to survive the injuries is if the man agrees to make a blood transfusion, if the man says no, the ran over person will die. Do you not think the man would not or should not be held legally responsible for the fact he directly caused that person to die, especially when an option existed for that man to save him or her? The short answer is someone would be held responsible. So why would it be any different here? As mentioned, a Fetus only came into its position in the first place as a direct consequence of the actions his or her parents did. Why should the child die to undo that mistake?
“2. It’s illogical to call a fetus “innocent” since it’s incapable of existing on a spectrum of innocence/guilt.” - Only according to you. I don’t agree. And the relevance of this point is made mute, reframe it whatever you would like. Still doesn’t change the Fetus did no wrong and as such, there would be nothing that would justify his or her condiment to death.
“Not to mention the implications that come with it. Why isn’t the mother innocent?” - In the case of an abortion, simple. She with full knowledge and motive to do so is terminating the life of her child.
“And if both mother and fetus are innocent, whose innocence should be overridden and why?” - The mother is innocent until she takes action to kill said child. No one is saying her innocence should be overwritten, only that we should not enable a clear act that would be equvelate to murder to continue to be treated as anything less than a criminal act.
“3. Your reference to D&E abortions – the rarest kind in existence – is committing the Spotlight Fallacy.” - How so? If it is rare, that should only further my point. A more humane option exists that would at least attempt to save the life of the child, yet not only is that measure not taken. But much of the pro choice argument actively works to prevent any protections on the child that was intended to be aborted at all.
“4. What you consider to be a convenience regarding abortion is ultimately a matter of subjective opinion,” - It really isn’t. Because all we have to ask is would these reasons be considered valid excuses if they were to be carried out in terminating an innocent human being after birth. And like I said, I am not saying that it is automatically easy, nor am I saying there can’t be complications. But to act like in 99% of cases that what a woman would go through would be even comparable to literally having a body torn apart and sucked through a vacuum is frankly ridiculous.
“and the only opinion that matters when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is that of the woman. Why should a third party with no stake in her private reproductive choices get to decide, but not her?” - Why should a third party had interfered with slavery, or rape, or drugs, and anything for that matter? A third party exists to protect the interests of the one who can’t voice those interests. Back in the day it was slaves, then Jews, and now it is the unborn. Also when the abortion clinics are literally recieving government funding with tax payer money, then it is no longer a private matter, and that’s if your’re ignoring that any kind of abuse or destruction of a human being is not a private matter.
“5. Saying abortion “should be” a crime is committing the Naturalistic Fallacy.” - I never made an appeal to nature. I never said something was automatically good just because it is natural. So either you did not pay attention to my context or you attempted to put words in my mouth. For the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will say the formal.
“6. Malice is defined as a conscious, intentional wrongdoing either of a civil wrong or a criminal act, with the intention of doing harm to the victim. Since harm and death are not the goal of an abortion,” - Tell that to the treatment of abortion survivors, plus literally pro choice adovates kept moving the goal post long after a point where the child could survive on their own. After that point, there is no excuse unless you are accounting for the 1%.
“malice is not a factor that compels the process of abortion,” - Do you really think no parent seeks an abortion with the intention of getting rid of their child?
“so claiming that an abortions are done with the intent to harm the fetus is misrepresenting not only its purpose, but the motives of the woman and doctor, all without evidence.” - Coming in with the full knowledge and intent to kill that fetus would make it come across that way pretty easily. Even if I agreed it wasn’t the primary intent, it still does not change they cannot play ignorant on the implications of their own actions.
“7. Good on those politicians. They saw that the bill existed to prevent the mythical casual late-term abortion invented by pro-lifers,” - So hold on, you are suggesting that you would be against late term abortion unless under medical neccessity being outlawed. Also I don’t see how a bill that specifically states the protection of the child in the event he or she survives the abortion procedure is equvelant to that.
“and that such a bill (had it passed) would’ve been a stepping stone for even steeper abortion restrictions in the future.” - Slippery Slope fallacy. You cannot automatically shoot down something good, just because it could lead to what they perceive as bad later. That makes no sense. Also the same could be said in reverse and rn there is more evidence to suggest the reverse is true, since every single time the pro choicers gain any ground on abortion being allowed up to a certain point, they keep moving their goal post.
“In the real world, healthy pregnant women with healthy 8½ month fetuses do not casually demand abortions, and doctors do not casually agree to do them. To suggest otherwise is an insult to both women and doctors.” - It does become a smaller statistic, but does not mean it does not happen. Also if it almost never happens, there would be no reason to oppose it being outlawed.
1
-
@EnlightenedByKnowledge “8. A fetus isn't entitled to another person's womb for the mere virtue of existing, and if a woman wants them out, they are within their rights to make it happen.” - Removal and deliberate termination are not the same thing.
“It's their uterus, not the fetus'.” - Ok and I could argue a woman is not entitled to kill another human being to undo a mistake she herself caused. That goes both ways.
“9. Punitive damages are considered a type on punishment in law. You’re still being pro-punishment. Also, taking responsibility entails choosing to do something. The pregnant woman chooses to get an abortion in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, so she's taking responsibility -- just not in a way which acceptable to you.” - No she is dodging it, not all choices are being responsible and many are done to actively avoid that responsibility. This is no different. As mentioned, I am not pro punishment, at least not based on the idea that pregnancy is a punishment. Because it isn’t.
“10. You’re right. Nobody was forced to subjugate born, living human beings to a lifetime of involuntary servitude, but the very fact that they were allowed to do so was wrong. That's why nobody should force women to endure an unwanted pregnancy, not even the government.” - Once again, denying an action to kill a child is not the same as forcing anything. As mentioned, I have no care if a woman ends her pregnancy early, if doing so does not kill her own child. And the same could said that is just as wrong to treat a human being as what is effectively property that can be disposed of whenever someone wants for whatever reason. That degrades the unborn to the same value of blacks during slavery where at best their value was conditional, and at worst were treated like disposable property no different than a piece of fire wood.
“To suggest otherwise is to believe that it isn’t wrong to put up barriers between people and their right to bodily sovereignty,” - The thing is there has always been barriers. What do you think concepts like age of consent, drinking age, seatbelt laws, child negligence laws also do? Also I am not going to lie, I won’t accuse you of this since I don’t know your stance on this, but most pro choices forfeited this argument from the moment they were ok with vaccine mandates from the government which directly violated the body autonomy they claimed to fight for. It kinda becomes inconsistent to argue “My body, my choice.” During the vaccination mandate they cheered upon people getting fired, excluded from society, and in some areas even arrested and fined for not doing it. And that is a lot more forced than leaving an already existing pregnancy.
“just like slave-owners did to their slaves, hence the comparison is warranted. It’s also worth noting that unlike fetuses, slaves didn’t live inside of their owners and depend on them for their continued existence at the exclusion of everybody else.” - I mean, in a one for one no. But in other cases yes, many slaves did not know how to function in society once granted freedom and ironically this was an argument pro slavers used, that the slaves benefited off of being slaves, and that freeing them would lead to many blacks who didn’t know how to function in society and could even lead to a revolt. Also as I mentioned, why should dependence be the deciding factor? Is that literally trying to say that their life is only as valuable as the amount of people that can care for him or her?
* * *
“One final question: Assuming they are caught, what do you believe the punishment ought to be for women who get abortions, and the doctors who provide them?” - For the doctor, I think depending on the scale of the crime, 20-life in prison would be fine. As for the woman, this is more complicated. The thing is that the goal would not be to punish her, but at the same time, some degree of action would have to be done to scare them from attempts. I could see repeated attempts lead to maybe either a year in prison, a fine, or perhaps receiving some kind of therapy. But that would only be extreme cases since as mentioned the goal would not be for the woman to be punished.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg
"-Yes, it does, as you are misrepresenting them." - Then u better argue the same thing to people that call the "republic of North Korea", a dictatorship. Misrepresentation is trying to classify them as something they are factually not.
"-That's just the simple definition. If you actually look at the expanded definition, it clearly says choice. You are ignorant." - That is not my responsibility. Counter my sources. Give me a source of ur own. It is not difficult.
"Because you cherry picked a purposely vague definition, that doesn't go into detail of what pro-choice actually is." - Then tell me through a source what details I am missing. That is part of a debate. Interpreting evidence. So give me a piece of evidence. Otherwise ur only going by ur word.
"No, I'm not. Practically all dictionaries include choice in their definitions." - "include choice"? What r u even talking about here? Also again, source me at least 2 dictionaries since u tell me basically all of them say it. It should not be hard for u.
"Only in the minds of ignorant Pro-lifers like you." - No, only within the actual definitions. A definition u have no yet countered in an alternate source. So again, denial. Also again ur the one being ignorant, when u cannot so much as give me one piece of evidence.
"No, I'm not." - then give me info to counter my evidence! Without sources to counter my current one, u r just dismissing my evidence out of hand. Something that u cannot do in a logical debate.
"Which you are, as you are completely ignoring most other dictionaries, and the detailed definitions associated with the simple definition that you cherry picked." - Again, I did not cherry pick at all, I accessed the first few basic dictionary sources. That isn't ignorance. Give me a source to counter it! It is not hard.
"You're projecting." - Projecting what?
"I'm not. It is you that is doing that." - R u that stupid? U have not given me a source to deny even if I wanted to. Seriously. I have spend pretty much this entire reply simply asking for sources to support ur arguments because so far all u have done is just try to claim my sources are wrong or misrepresent without any evidence to back it.
Seriously, ur doing a poor job in changing any reasonable mind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@looneyburgmusic "1. Because it is trying to erase the history of those events and what made it up." - Bullshit." It really isn't. It is erasing reminders of the events and what occurred in them. Especially when as many of the Dems now do are trying to advocate their total destruction.
"You don't need monuments to defeated traitors who tried to destroy this nation and whom killed brave American Patriots to remember "history" - that's what these wonderful things called "History Books" are for." - I never said it was automatically needed, but its existence does enhance its study and reminder of said history, also to note that many of the Confederate people the statues were built for already had a long standing career in the Union prior. Are we to disregard the work they did for the Union over siding with a secession?
"Also Bullshit. Washington or Jefferson were not traitors to the United States, were they? So only other traitors to the United States would want to 'erase' those individuals, and would be stopped, just as the "Confederate" traitors were stopped, in the War of the Southern Rebellion." - Here is the thing, legally speaking the southern generals are still regarded as American vets. As don't forget even Lincoln himself pardoned them, there were many reasons for this, but one in particular in the context of the time was secession was not technically illegal yet. Now this changed in 1869 with Texas v White. But until then, there was no concrete legal document stating secession to be illegal within the bounds of the US constitution. That does not make what the south did right, but it does put into perspective that the south did not just view their departure as "Screw America." It was viewed in the context that they believed the Federal government was violating their individual rights and liberties, including state powers that were stated in the constitution. Now yes, most of these stances were done to preserve slavery and the south was more than willing to flip flop positions when it suited them. But in the context of what was viewed at the time, Lincoln did not consider the south to be some enemy nation.
Of course what you are ignoring is many of the people who want to take down CSA statues are the same people who want to do so for Washington, Jefferson, etc. And I will mention as well, who gets to decide whether the statues gets removed, who should hold that decision? And where should the statues go? That is important to note as well. The thing is the Civil War was part of American history and I personally would rather see as much of that history preserved for people to see how far we came as a country since then and so that it is easy to learn from.
1
-
@looneyburgmusic “How? Or, build a museum.” - Agreeable, let me know when the people wanting to take the statue removed do that, also as mentioned, who gets to decide that?
"Are we to disregard the work they did for the Union over siding with treason against the United States?" - There, fixed that typo for you. Also, yes. Traitors lose all rights to be remembered for anything. - You fixed nothing, call it treason all you want, By that logic so are we, or are we going to forget the US very existence was formed on treason to the British crown. And not according to the US recognition they did.
“NO. THEY. ARE. NOT.”- Yes there are. US Public Law 85-425, Section 410 gave Confederate Veterans the same legal status as US veterans in terms of pension rights.
That story, that Congress made traitor confederates "US Veterans" is a lie. - Read above.
“In order to be "pardoned" you must first admit your guilt in the crime you are being offered a pardon for. And a pardon only removes the legal PUNISHMENT, not factual GUILT.” - Once again secession at the time had a gray area that existed, while no legal document said they could do it, nothing said they couldn’t either.
“In other words, by accepting a pardon, those "confederates" were admitting to Treason Against the United States.” - Once again only if you equite a secession to treason. But as mentioned before, there was no legal binding document that stated secession was illegal at the time of the Civil War.
“Yes, it was. Under the Constitution, which specifically reserves to CONGRESS the power and authority to determine what is, and is not, a "State". - Determining what is and isn’t a state does equate to whether or not a state could legally leave the Union. What it was saying was only Congress had the power to control the entry of new states, not whether current ones could leave.
"...they believed the Federal government was violating their individual rights and liberties" - “Too bad.” - And they would just as easily say the same to you. And you're missing the point, the constitution does mention that if the government becomes a tyrannical power violating the individual liberties of its people that the states and people could abolish it.
“The Federal Constitution is supreme. Again, tough shit on those traitors.” - 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As far as the south was concerned the Federal Government was violating a state’s constitutional rights to its self determination. Now, I don’t agree with this given that many of their actions were done before the North enacted anything that could violate it. But it is easy to see at the time why they would think this.
“Irrelevant. The South itself DID consider itself to be a "separate" nation.” - Only according to you, but guess what it is factually relevant considering that was the primary reason the north did not work to punish the south post war, nor that it committed many major atrocities against the south during the war if avoidable. Its treatment was very much treated as an internal conflict between American countrymen, as such the south was subject to the same rights in war that the northern soldiers were given. You don’t get to deny that just because it suits your agenda.
"Of course what you are ignoring is many of the people who want to take down CSA statues are the same people who want to do so for Washington, Jefferson, etc. " -
“Such as? Examples?” - Says the one who didn’t even know of the implications of Texas v White or Public Law 85-425. And it is pretty easy to google examples happening rn, I would send you links but Youtube would automatically delete it, apparently they hate people using links.
“Of "Confederate" traitors? How about the nearest junk-yard?” - You are only proving my point. The extremes you are having to dismantle that history is why people are fighting against it.
“It's already been preserved - in history books.” - History books are not the same as settings and monuments. I don’t even think I have to explain this to you. Reading a book is not the same as being in location and viewing the monuments that occurred alongside it.
“Also, if that was the point, where are all the monuments in the South to the victorious and righteous Union Patriots, who put down the traitors and their rebellion?” - Many were never built in the south in the first place, or did you forget that they were initially bitter post war. The thing is I agree that having both sides be accounted for in things such as monuments would go a long way. Perhaps have a statue of the major generals of both sides of a particular battle. That would definitely help bring a more neutral feeling to things, but of course I wouldn’t be surprised if people like you found a way to complain anyways.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Suckerx911 "Left looks for equality, Right look for individual freedom." - Then you can't factor totalitarianism in that. Since it represents neither. So that is not a consistent metric. Also that implies equality is the opposite of individual freedom, that doesn't make any sense either.
"Guess what, both are fundamental needs of human being. and too much of either is just like drink too much water will kill one. extreme Communism is killed and already proven not working, and capitalism triumphed. China is no longer a communist country, they thrived on capitalism, and yet if one party pushed way too far, problem emerges. Capitalism is great at creating value, yet really poor at distribute it, That's how communism was created, poor living condition and long hours drive those poor people felt resentment. Later on, capitalist learned it's lesson, to leave some money on the table, and improve people's living condition and education system." - Ignoring that you are confusing communism with socialism, I will agree with this point somewhat. But much of it depends on what you define distribution as. The biggest weakness of capitalism is it doesn't value anything passed the commodity or monetary value.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikemcmike6427 "and why would average conservatives be needed? 8 years into totalitarianism???" - Are you meaning why he didn't get rid of them later on? Because by the time he took total control, most were not operating as a threat to him. The few that were (The German National People's Party as an example), Hitler was rather quick to extort in dissolving under the threat of being targeted.
"Why did they vote for him: think long and hard. so in other words more lies from ginger lard." - Primarily, because they believed he was the best chance they had to prevent a Marxist takeover. As mentioned too, they mistakenly believed they could control or at least contain Hitler's influence, thus weaponizing him for their own purposes without any drawbacks. Of course this was not the case once Hitler took complete control.
"Yea you’ve repeated 5 times now they thought they could control him. You’ve clearly watched 3 Nazis documentaries on YouTube and are an expert." - So do you deny that they did believe that?
"So again no explanation for the mass persecution of the left from the high to low., but not of the right." - Again, most leftists were composed of Marxists who Hitler saw as the lead ideological enemy as explained in the video. As for the Social Democrats, they were one of the lead parties actively opposing Hitler's takeover, especially when it came down to their opposition to the enabling act of 1933. As such, Hitler correctly guessed that the Social Democrats would likely become a barrier for him. How do you not understand this? The only difference between the right and left by the time Hitler assumed total control was that the right was smart enough or scared enough (depending on which way you look at it) to back down and effectively surrendered to Nazi rule. The left by comparison didn't and once when they were made an example of, do you really think the right wing parties were going to try the same thing? Again, the German National People's Party (GNPP) is living proof of this very example.
"The ginger lard lies again: no wonder you are alone" - What part of this has been a lie? You are yet to find a single thing I have stated that you can factually disprove.
"Yes hitler operated once he had his totalitarian dictatorship on the idea of “don’t bite the hand that feeds you” - So you are agreeing that he isn't going to go after the people that are actively ensuring his regime's economy. Great to hear.
"When you have nothing! Just invent history!" - What is there to invent? All of it has been made pretty evident either within the video, or within simple research on the topic points being discussed. No matter which way you slice it, the Nazis were an authoritarian socialist ideology and regime.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Die-Sophie "Say goodbye to the idea of an economic yardstick measured by today's definition." - Sadly for you I won't.
"Under Hitler, there was no equality of the people as in the ideal of socialism," - So by that logic, Stalin must not had been a real socialist either right? What about Mao? Or Kim? Or Castro? Are you for real? Neo Marxists can preach equality all they want but when it comes down to their regimes in practice, they were never equal.
"but he chose his people, who were allowed to be equal." - You mean something the Marxists also did? So tell me were they not "real socialists" either?
"This has nothing to do with socialism, but was a national socialism," - Which is socialism. National Socialism which is really just racial socialism is applying socialism for a specific race. In Hitler's case the Aryans. However in order to create such a regime he needed to clear the ground with what he saw as either lesser races or systems part of the Jewish conspiracy.
"which was enforced with extreme right-wing means." - Like?
"No nationalization of enterprises," - So I suppose Junkers lost his factory by the forces of Magic.
"but only the expropriation of Jewish property in favor of Aryans." - Like the expropriation of Kulak's Property in the Soviet Union?
"Super example: The father of the musician Billy Joel. Helmut Joel was a factory owner for clothing in Nuremberg and was expropriated. The beneficiary was his competitor Josef Neckermann, who was offered this company for sale very cheaply." - Yes the Nazis would re privitize production lines to party members. However within a totalitarian state. Loyalty to the party is the same thing as loyalty to the state.
"The "modern" neo-Nazis are just as idiots as the old ones. They are too stupid to be able to set up anything economic." - Ignoring Mein Kampf did just that. You may rightfully find the economic theory stupid. But it is not because the old Nazis had no economic plan. It was that they never succeeded in establishing the groundwork to implement such a plan.
"Independently, they see themselves in the spirit of their role models from the past." - R u referring to Modern Neo Nazis?
1
-
@Die-Sophie "Your problem, not mine. But you won't never understand Hitler's National Socialism." - Even though I do.
"As I said before, you should study more about NATIONAL socialism and the differences with normal socialism. That's your mistake." - Again if your logic is saying that if it's not equality it isn't socialism will then, how do you explain the many socialist dictatorships?
"And the capitalists, communists, fascists, ... Any. Even the Republic Party" - Deflection I see. It is also irrelevant. We are not talking about Capitalists or Fascists. We are talking about specifically socialists.
"So do all those who do not fit the collective. These are classic right-wing extremist methods." - Right so Lenin, Stalin, and Mao must be right wing right? LOL.
"The basis of the National Socialist worldview is the inequality of people, which ultimately led to the racial mania of the Nazi regime. This is the exact opposite of the leftist ideal of equality." - Ignoring that lefitist equality exists in a fallacy when applied into practice. And not every leftist aims for equality and different than every person on the right not aiming for it. This is also where the debate comes in between equal opportunity vs equal outcome.
"Violence, torture, terror, murder. These are also classic right-wing radical methods and are not unique to socialists." - I never said they were unique to socialists. However if you are trying to use those to disqualify Hitler from being a socialist, then by your logic, no "real socialist" would do that. Yet you listed socialists just earlier. So which is it?
"As a democrat and pacifist, he did not come to terms with the NSDAP. Furthermore he fell out with some senior staff and NSDAP members. So he was classified as an enemy of the state. In 1933 - in fact - he was expropriated and banned from the city of Dessau. Incidentally, the expropriation took place exactly 2 days after Hitler took power. What a coincidence of timing!" - And do you really think Junkers was the only one who lost their property to Hitler over not wanting to abide Hitler's economic policies?
"But I'm sure you can give me other cases of industrial expropriation. Can you?" - https://www.jstor.org/stable/2350401
"The Nazis also seized the property of other minorities, stigmatised groups and "enemies" of the regime for a number of ideological, political and economic reasons. Traditional stereotypes as well as stereotypes intensified by the Nazi regime and "modern" perceptions of racism provided the basis for the persecution of Sinti and Roma, who had to endure repression and persecution as well as expropriation.
Slovenes and Czechs also caught the eye of the Nazi authorities as they embarked on their "aryanization policies". Due to foreign-policy considerations, however, the Croat and Hungarian minorities did not have to endure most of these measures of repression.
Expropriation was also a means of suppressing politically persecuted persons. In most cases this was achieved directly or indirectly by not admitting these persons to their profession. Homosexuals were increasingly persecuted by the Nazi regime. Stigmatizing homosexuality justified political acts of cleansing within the regime's own ranks. The mass killings of physically and mentally disabled persons referred to as "euthanasia" had ideological roots as well as economic aspects." (https://www.wien.gv.at/english/administration/restitution/assets/population.html)
"Or rather on the connection of Henry Ford and other US companies to the German economy and Hitler. Probably Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil, IBM are all arch-conservative socialists. Are they? Certainly a funny idea that the big capitalists of the USA would suddenly have been socialists." - Financial gain is not the same as ideological alignment. Otherwise by your logic, the German Empire in 1917 must be Marxist because they supported Lenin's revolution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 ok and as I mentioned before that was not the original quote displayed behind my point. Which is why I went back to find it because I realized in memory that wouldn’t make sense,
This was the full quote: “"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 again before I later realized that wasn’t even the original quote I used. It’s amazing how ur only trying to use my defense statements which were relying on memory rather than the actual original quote. Which wasn’t that. Again the original quote went as followed,
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch."
U have nothing to show to back ur claim and even if u did it’s not relevant anymore. Given the actual quote that I had to once again show to u. At this point this has nothing to do with even the debate anymore and instead has been used as a personal attack on me
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 Once again sought by definition means to desire, obtain, or attempt to achieve.
"The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 no they did not define it as private ownership. Nice try attempting to cherry pick the definition again. No, it is control of trade and industry by private owners. Private ownership, by itself isn’t capitalism. And I already explained even beyond the definitions I used that contradict your notion, there are too many reasons why that wouldn’t be the case even from a pragmatic perspective. What’s the difference between ordering someone dead vs doing the deed yourself? Either way their blood is on your hands by your will. Same token. What difference does it make when the state nationalizes an industry vs controls the industry through o surf levels of taxation, regulation, mandates, quotas, and threats of expropriation. Either way the state controls the industry. It’s literally a difference between direct control vs control by proxy. That is literally the only thing that separates the two if the private owner is not in control of his or her own trade and industry. Or means of production, or economy. Which ever way u want to frame it. And it’s funny since your so quick to defend the legitimacy of the term State Capitalism under the argument that “the state takes the place of the bourgeoisie,” (Another pro Marxist red flag), yet you arguing against the notion that the state is effectively controlling the industries and trading in all but name. Meaning the private owner can’t properly make decisions over his or her property and his or her property only stays theirs entirely conditional on how much the state likes you and how much of a puppet you are willing to be. Again don’t believe me? Ask Junkers and the Jews. What happened to their businesses exactly?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No not really. The basis is this. First off, Germany taking time to fully repair doesn't change that they would gain more and more oil over time. Secondly, no it would not cause a near Soviet economic collapse (like what happens in our own timeline), it would cause a collapse. The Soviets were struggling enough as it was with the fall of the Ukraine and had the Caucasus fallen completely, it would of been the straw that broke the camel's back. Also the local advantage, better manpower, and logistics is meaningless if their resistance cannot be organized or be properly supplied. At this point not only would a German victory in Fall Blau be a strategic defeat for the Soviets, it would be moralewise, a crushing defeat and would possibly destroy Soviet organization almost completely. If we were to combine this with a German attack of Moscow in 1943 as what the Germans planned. This would of been the final blow to destroy Soviet organization of their resistance.
"Nazis unable to hold Volga and even more over extended. " Had blow succeeded, they would of held the Volga or at least west of it.
"Baku refineries/railroads easy target for partisans and soviet air attack." Soviet partisans were not major enough of a threat and the Soviet air force was inferior to the Luftwaffe at the time.
"A nuke on Berlin would end European WW2 in short order." No it really wouldn't. First off it would be realistically near impossible to do an air raid on Berlin in this alternante 1945 and even had it worked, unless Hitler dies, Germany will not surrender and the Americans and Brits are not going to resort to Nuclear genocide.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paidgovernmentshill_6950 Not just military, but also courts, economists, agencies, etc. Not to mention that is why I stated the way they took power holds relevance. However this is not a consistent ground to stand on because again as I mentioned before, by that logic, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim Un Sung, and Castro weren’t socialists either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@herbertwilkshire4265 "so if someone misdefines words no one else is allowed to come fix them afterwards right?" - No but the burden falls on u to explain and source why the term is incorrect. Not just dismiss it out of hand.
"Society must continue to use the incorrect words for things? Seems reasonable" - Again, strawman. If u wish to challenge a definition, then the burden of proof falls on u to disprove it.
"You overuse the words fallacy with apparently little understanding of it's meaning." - How so?
Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.
"Especially ironic since you commit many logical fallacies yourself." - such as?
"No it's not oxymoronic and you repeatedly saying it is, does not make it so.." - Capitalism Definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
State Capitalism Def: a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.
- So tell me how an economic system which is by definition inherently anti state control able to be state control? Lol.
"and you have also not provided an argument supporting it either.. whereas i did provide one supporting my claims." - U really didn't. Trying to deny every failed socialist in history is not an argument. Its denialism.
"That's means I'm winning." - Keep deluding yourself bud.
"Some of the genocidal totalitarians were socialist in nature, and some of them were capitalist in nature. I can admit to that." - Ok, name me some then. Because going by ur previous logic, it was not Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Kim, or Castro. So who then? Or r u even beginning to realize how dumb ur previous argument was?
"But you can't admit that any of them were ever capitalist. That's weak. That makes me more of a man than you." - How so? Again I am going by basic concept definitions. Ur trying to turn this into a bash war. Concurring to something that is not true does not make you "more of a man" it makes you a blind sheep.
"Lol an anarchist resorts to the mental gymnastics of saying that now suddenly governments actually represent their constituents so long at it supports your current argument." - Who said I was an anarchist? Making assumptions now?
"Hilarious and pathetic. You clearly have no spine." - According to you, but you would not know what a spine is if it displayed itself to ur face.
"Newsflash.. no, they don't. They only do in theory.. unless it's direct democracy.. which doesn't exist in the world." - Laughs in Ancient Greece.
"In practice, they serve corporate interests mostly. Especially in America and other third world shirtholes." - America aint a third world country firstly, secondly, I am not saying capitalism cannot be corrupted. I acknowledge those faults and how often a corrupted capitalism would prevent the state from involving itself in an area that it should be involved in. Legal suing and Unions being good examples.
"Please learn the difference between your and You're.. your elementary grammatical errors don't help your messages credibility" - R u not aware of a concept such as spell correction features? Also I didn't know you became the grammar police as well. LOL. Most people on Youtube do not care and write what is most simplistic to get their message across.
"My true colors? I'm sick of debating with you degenerates." - More blind insult.
"There's only one thing i want with your mentally defective kind" - Go ahead, say it. No spine. Also my kind? Not very egalitarian of you. You must not be a "Real Socialist" either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 “From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men's brains, not in men's better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch."
Already highlighted the original quote. And as mentioned sought has a definition of to be desired, obtained, or achieved.
Sought DEF: attempt or desire to obtain or achieve
Even disregarding that, there are more than enough writing within the manifesto to back my claim.
"“The immediate aim of the Communist is the same as that of all the other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.” - This is Engels stating quote clearly that the aim of any communist would be to overthrow the bourgeosis and take political power for the proletariat class. Are you still going to deny that Engels advocated revolution?
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 Also it is enjoyable you keep cherry picking again.
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!”
It is literally written as a literal call to action and you still want to ignore that. I don't care if Engels wasn't Marx. He still co wrote the manifesto and has just as much authority in determining Marxism as Marx did. And as mentioned considering nearly every Marxist state implimented itself doing just that, it is clear I am not the only one who came to that conclusion. Sense a general consensus is so fun for people to rely on here when talking about the Nazis, let's do the same with Marx and Marxism, shall we?
“Marx believed that capitalism, with its emphasis on profit and private ownership, led to inequality among citizens. Thus, his goal was to encourage a system that promoted a classless society in which everyone shared the benefits of labor and the state government controlled all property and wealth.” - https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/communism/#:~:text=Marx%20believed%20that%20capitalism%2C%20with,controlled%20all%20property%20and%20wealth.
“Of all the figures discussed in these articles thus far, Karl Marx is without a doubt the most Revolutionary. Marx believed that Revolution was both fundamentally essential and inevitable to the progress of human society. He anticipated that eventually the workers of the world would realise they ‘have nothing to lose but their chains’ and revolt against the industrialists and capitalists who covertly controlled their lives.” - https://blogs.kent.ac.uk/ageofrevolution/revolutionary-figures/karl-marx/
“The idea that a proletarian revolution is needed is a cornerstone of Marxism; Marxists believe that the workers of the world must unite and free themselves from capitalist oppression to create a world run by and for the working class.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_revolution
“Marx said that capitalists had alienated the worker from the results of his labor, forcing him to become "enslaved by the machine." This exploitation, argued Marx, would soon bring about a new class struggle that would end with the "violent overthrow" of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat.” - https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-2-a-karl-marx-a-failed-vision-of-history.html
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Charles-pf7zy "utopian socialist theory is based on the belief of peaceful means of surrender of capital. In which case the majority of predominant socialist/marxist thinkers would vehemently disagree, they generally believe a degree of violence is necessary to make the final transition. I now see where you’re coming from in terms of Marxism. However contemporarily people try to lump fascism in with Marxist socialism as a way to discredit marxist theory (I don’t really think you need to make incredulous statements to discredit Marxism, I think you can make a reasonable assertion that it does not work with arguments based on reality)." - I will be the first to state I am not trying to use National Socialism to discredit Marxism. I am still against Marxism, but it is not for the same reasons I am against National Socialism.
"Basically the framing is Nazi germany = Marxist, and since modern socialists pretty much all come from marxist theory the logic would be, socialist = nazi . as I’ve said before the two ideologies are diametrically opposed, Marxism and fascism that is." - Well I would agree with that too. Except here is the thing. Throughout history, there were socialist ideologies that predate Marxism and socialist ideologies that aren't Marxism. Good examples include Market Socialism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Liberal Socialism, Etc.
Now a minor correction. Fascism and National Socialism are separate ideologies. But ignoring that, the reasoning of opposition is believing that Marxism was the wrong way to obtain a good socialist society. Ironically even Marxism itself have variants that are opposed with each other. Main example being Stalinism vs Trotskyism.
1
-
@Charles-pf7zy "I know he said that. But a 4 hour video is bound to get comments from people that haven’t watched it. I was more pushing against a common narrative in the comments for people to read because many of them are likely to already have made up their mind and are skimming through this video to try to justify their own conclusions, despite the fact TIK acknowledged Marxism =\= hitler." - Which is understandable.
"To your average Fox News political layman, the idea likely pushed by think tanks that modern day socialists actually derive their ideas from Hitler himself is too commonly held. Which is where the really dumb horseshoe political meme comes from." - Which I don't agree with those that try to weaponize that.
“Historians tend to differentiate between German National Socialism and Italian Fascism — they have a few points of difference. The main one is that the National Socialists did not really take the state as the ultimate "unit" of history/politics — they saw race (or "blood" as the Germans often put it) as the ultimate unit”
"So yes there are parallels between fascism, nazism, and socialism, however to conflate the three as the same thing done by uninformed political laymen is something I was trying to combat. You can have a correct position, that Marxists-Leninists are bad, but if your reasoning is based on falsehoods then the argument itself is based on shoddy ground." - True. But that is why it is always best to get opposing logic before jumping to any conclusions. At least that is how I see it.
"Overall tho unlike your view, I’m in the camp that those ideologies are more cultural than simple economics, since economic goals are derived from social values, the goals themselves are not objective. (the means to achieve those goals must be objectively based however)" - While I do somewhat I agree with this. The problem is Socialism was always rooted more in economic theory especially when u include all of it instead of just Marxism, that it is difficult to form a culture around it. Capitalism has a similar problem but even that does call against regulation and a more open market.
"And because of that, I don’t see socialism as “big state”. Often big states are used in the name of socialism, but an anarchist nation or even anything in between can also be fascist or socialist so I don’t really like the idea that fascism and socialism are centered around totalitarian governments. It leads to the false conclusion that since the two regimes operate the same way at least superficially , they must be the same thing. A large state can be used to enforce fascist values and discourage socialist values without being contradictory." - I would agree with this except given the generalized and historical definition of socialism. Fascism still exists as a variant of the concept. Yes I will agree Fascism is not the same as "modern socialism" since socialist concepts are more streamlined now than they were pre WW2.
"And yes, some Marxist theories existed before him. He probably wasn’t the first person ever to come up with his conclusions. However we call his ideology Marxism because it is him who consolidated these ideas into a canonized ideology so that’s why he is considered the face of socialism." - Which is the problem people like TIK struggle with. Because unfortunately Marxism has dominated socialist theory for the past 100 years that it has gotten to the point where people just view socialism as Marxism. In fact most of TIK's detractors tend to do just that, with some even being Marxists themselves.
"I believe my way of viewing socialism and fascism is more relevant because modern day dialogue about those ideologies carry a huge amount of social context beyond that of the structure of government and transient economic policies. So while your definition of socialism isn’t inaccurate, modern day discourse of them carry immense cultural baggage that make the nazi = socialist paradigm troublesome beyond semantic reasons." - Which is understandable. However this is where your conclusion differs from mine. I don't believe historical definition and theories should be discarded just because they are not "relevant" to modern times. As from my point of view, it creates 3 problems. 1. It leaves Pre Marx Socialist history relatively in the dark. 2. It creates a falsified spectrum that doesn't reflect the root of any of these theories. Fascism cannot be considered far right when it has more in common with Marxism than Free Markets. 3. It restricts the exercise of socialist theory and essentially portrays Marx as the owner of socialism. While I do find socialism bad as a whole. There are some theories that can prove to hold merit within certain circumstances and in certain times. As a Centrist I can acknowledge when social programs for instance or say a more centralized economy during times of war is completely understandable. However such applications have been limited because everything has now been compared or contrasted to Marx. You have the right calling anything done the same as Marxism, while actual Marxists will use their consensus to say that theory A is not "real socialism."
From the historical context and my conclusion. Fascism and National Socialism are variants of socialism. They are not branched from Marxism, but they are rooted in the same overall principle. They just have different outlooks, methods to obtain it, and who they are doing it for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 ". And all Socialists" - Except those that aligned with him.
"and any on the left." - Which were mainly composed of Marxists.
"But, curriosly, no one on the right." - People who openly opposed Hitler and Jewish conservatives shared the fate of death camps. Marxists were targeted first, but anyone in opposition regardless if on the left or right would be purged off. Funny considering that Lenin and Stalin also purged socialists deemed a threat to their regimes.
"And he remains revered by the far right to this day." - Such as? I do not recall classic liberals or modern conservatives praising him.
"He nationalised the unions"
No he didn't. He outlawed them and replaced them with a system which removed all power from the workers." - The Unions were outlawed because he created a National version of it, the German Labor Front. To be fair it was corrupt as hell, but does not change the intent. Also again, banning unions by itself does not disprove anything.
"How does M-C-M C-M-C "not apply" under State Capitalism, as you claimed, by the way?" - Again, Marxist concepts don't define what capitalism is. A socialist regime can be just as exploitive as a capitalist one, hell its often more so since nothing can compete with the State control.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg "hey don’t let one person have u make judgment upon the entire religion as a whole."
-Oh, it's not just one person, all religious people are ignorant." - How presumptuous of u. So u in other words call over the US population ignorant. And let me ask, is it coincidence or do u view them as ignorant because they are religious.
"Killing an embryo is wrong because it is the killing of an innocent human being."
-Subjective." - ur right it is, however if u stand by the belief of killing innocent human beings is wrong then it would extend here in order to have the same logic.
"Biologically the only key difference between them and adults is stage of development."
-and at early stages of development, fetuses aren't sentient, thus there is no victim, and thus you can't objectively say it is wrong." - Victimhood does not mean anything. I could say the same for those in comas.
"In my opinion every innocent human being has intrinsic value."
-Your arbitrary opinion is not enough to restrict women's rights." - It being a women's rights is also an opinion. It is not a fundamental right. Rather it is one granted.
"To try to devalue one human without reason is to do the same against every human being."
-"Devaluing" assumes the human had value in the first place, and you are ignoring the fact that value is subjective. You might value the money in your pocket, but it's worthless to me." - Ok then would u argue killing any human is ok then?
"It is an objective fact that killing embryos is killing a human being."
-False. Embryos are not human beings. You clearly don't even know what 'being' means... a "being" is the nature or essence of a person, and a person is a being characterized by consciousness, rationality, and a moral sense, and traditionally thought of as consisting of both a body and a mind or soul. You are just demonstrating your ignorance with regards to the words you are using." - No I am really not
Human Being Definition: a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
An embryo is the child of a homo sapiens species meaning by definition it is a human being.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mikemcmike6427 "yes to have a full grasp of a topic at least 4 years of schooling would be nessecary, or similar self education. Every time I do talk you get everything wrong. You don’t even have a foundational understanding of things so everything is starting at square one. But again, all the experts are wrong, Tik is right. What a sad follower you are." - LOL. So you are saying it takes four years for you to present an argument of this kind. That is funny.
"that is why we have bachelor diplomas you clown...... wow you are really this stupid... Omg we could have condensed it to a five hour video on YouTube!!! Bachelor degrees are a waste!" - You act as if education talking points don't change over time. I am sure Cold War myth and Lost causers would say the same thing when people were spouting maybe the Soviets weren't incompetent and maybe the south did fight for slaves. It does no good to rely on a consensus as an argument of its own because that is an argument built on the foundation of sand.
"wow you are so dumb. Market socialism is still communal control of the means of production" - So is state control of the economy.
"The soviets implemented it by a command economy. With bureaucrats dictating production from every shoe to every shoelace.setting economic goals." - So let me get this straight with your logic. If it is ran by 13 corporation owners that are dictated in all but name by the state, that isn't socialism. But when it is ran by 13 government elite bureaucrats that are dictated by the state in all including name. Then it is socialism. If the state is in control, the differences are down to semantics.
"Market socialism the workers own directly all corporations and means of production. Every company is basically worker owned. Supply and demand still works just every company is a worker commune." - Wrong.
"Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy, or one that contains a mix of worker-owned, nationalized, and privately owned enterprises." - Privately owned enterprises could still exist within a market socialist regime. And as mentioned, the social democrats also weren't trying to completely get rid of private property. Were they not socialist either?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Michael 마익흘 Aronson not really. Simply look up my channel, my YouTube page, many other video comment sections, Facebook, discord, Kik, and amino. Not to mention Xbox. Also no. Again u can explain why u hate pro life members so much? What the hell did I or any of my allies ever do to u? Seriously, unless ur a dumb troll, u would have to have a legitimate reason to hate us so much. Also I’m sorry but no, we aren’t committing suicide to gratify u. For someone who claims to defend women, u advocate for 51% of them to kill themselves. Plain evil and despicable.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "I see you have admitted your mistake about your McDonalds assertion. That's progress, so well done and credit where credit is due.
What on earth does the fact that McDonalds has shareholders have to do with anything?!" - Think, if a company is collectively controlled by shareholders that operate as their own community, that would not be an individual ownership nor of even a smaller group.
"That's just more TIK nonsense, like when he claimed something wasn't private if more than about 17 people are involved." - I don't agree with a 17 number, its not a hard set thing. However there is a line when something is individually owned vs communally owned. TIK for example would make sense if say a society was only composed of 20 members and 17 out of those 20 owned the company. Because by that point overall, the society itself is what owns the facility or business. Of course the problem is and this is where I disagree with TIK's assertment is it isn't completely quantifiable. That is where a gray area exists within the private vs collective ownership.
"It's totally ludicrous and patrt of TIK's silly tactic of taking one definition of private and applying it in a totally different area." - True, despite agreeing with TIK's conclusion, there are flaws with some of his methods and outlooks. I mean despite agreeing with him about the Nazis, his claims are still carried out in the POV of an An cap.
"TIK's entire argument about the Nazis being socialist hangs on his definition of the word "public"." - I don't think that is entirely true. TIK's argument is built upon the notion of the state control. The Nazis did not completely nationalized the industries, but still managed to take control over them. And the thing is TIK equates State and Community. However I don't assert that all communities are states. I do conclude all states are communities given the practicality in how they operate as well as definition. But this is where TIK's and my conclusions differ, he would believe the notion that socialism would only ever exist through the state. I don't. Because socialism can and in a small scale has existed without major state meddling. Yugoslavia was a prime example of that and the one form of socialism I actually have a bit of respect for, despite still disagreeing with it.
"Hence the aforementioned 3 hour video in Roman building codes." - I will confess he does reference the Romans a decent amount, however even removing his biases I think the reason he does that is because socialism theory did take root during that time. Socialism existed long before Marxism.
"Now, would you say a private, fee paying school (which is what a public school is in England) an example of socialism? Yes or no?" - If it is not owned or controlled by a state or public body then no. If it is however yes. The thing is I don't know how involved the state is with the schools in UK as I am from the United States, so most of my reference points of personal experiences come from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "Private does not mean individual." - Um, (of a person) having no official or public role or position.
Person is sigular not plural. Now, for the3 context of economy private goes as follows.
Private Owner Definition: Private industries and services are owned or controlled by an individual person or a commercial company, rather than by the state or an official organization.
"That's another piece of TIK definition-twisting insanity you have bought into." - Not really.
"Of course McDonalds is privately owned, shareholders are private individuals." - The shares are privately owned yes, and nowhere did I argue they weren't. But it is not privately controlled but rather collectively controlled through a beucratic like system.
"For it to be collectively owned, it would have to be owned by and the profits shared among THE PEOPLE WHO WORK THERE." - No it doesn't.
Collective Ownership Definition: ownership by a group for the benefit of members of that group.
"This simple concept has been explained to you many times, but apparently it's still too complex for you to grasp." - There is not a complexity behind any of it. It is a simple falsehood. From a technical standpoint, something is a collective if owned by a group. So when I mention that a Corporation is collectively ran, that still holds truth. Now where you confuse it, is with the private sector. Which goes as follows: the economic segment controlled by private individuals and businesses rather than the government.
From a purely technical standpoint, even Worker's coops are still technically part of the private sector despite being collectively or communally controlled. A corporation and Coop can still be part of the private sector even if they are not private controlled by individuals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "Fairly" is a subjective term. - Ok and if fairly is subjective, than how can you objectively try to decide it isn't fair? The workers can walk away if they feel that it isn't a fair arrangement. The fact that concepts like fair is subjective only furthers capitalism's stance. If one person feels the arrangements of working at that business isn't fair, nothing is physically stopping them from quiting and searching for a different job. Of course if you choose to end the deal or exchange between yourself and the owner, you cannot be angry when the owner hires someone to replace you who is willing to work for the wage and time you were unwilling to, nor can you claim it to be unfair that you are now suffering the consequences of your choices by not making any money until getting a new job.
"Now you're changing your argument, while still admittimg the employee has to be paid less than the value they generate 😆🤣😆." -
It's also funny you all but completely ignored my examples of why your claim of worker exploitation is ridiculous based on your ridiculous concept of the labor theory of value. Again, mowing someone's lawn doesn't give you ownership over it. If someone agrees to build a chair for $20. It doesn't matter if after you sell it for $25 or $50. How r u not getting this? The reason you don't understand this is because you are acting like the value a product generates comes exclusively from labor. Here I will even break it down for you so you finally understand this on why owners tend to get more and who contributes to what.
A product is made through all these factors:
Capital (Owner), Expenses (Owner), Risk (Owner), Liability Insurances (Owner), Business Tax (Owner), Sue payments if something goes wrong (Owner), Labor (Worker).
Are you starting to get it? An owner has a lot more to cover and a lot more to risk. Again its a high risk, high reward. That is what contrasts them to employees. Being a worker or a standard employee is typically a much safer job. Because the worse that can happen to you financially because of the job is losing it.
The Owner on the other hand is investing hundreds, thousands, or some rare cases millions of dollars based on gambling an idea or product they think the market will want, as well as gambling their own ability to sell it. If they lose out, they will have a lot more to lose since not only does it make all their investments before be for nothing, but any debt the business makes has to be paid off by the owner. This is the kind of risk nearly every business runs into when first opening. Yes through skill and sometimes caution you can reduce the risk, but it is still a risk all the same. Again, High Risk, High Reward. Contrary to what you think, I am not against Coops out of hand so as long as it operates with the mutual and consensual agreements in mind. If they share the risk, they share the reward.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
jeff jr except I haven’t. Because ur trying to detach Hitler from a socialist and claim him to be a fascist instead. Ignoring that Fascism is founded in socialist roots as highlighted by both Gentile and Mussolini. But again u cannot define Fascism by a couple of arbitrary traits. That’s like saying socialism just wants democracy. Without actually defining what socialism actually is and what it calls for. Then it’s going to be quick logic, where if only a few arbitrary concepts define an ideology than more outside that ideology could be labeled as it. Stalin for example was ultra nationalist (socialism in one country), was a known racist and anti semite, called for complete totalitarianism, wanted a gigantic military (USSR began highly militarizing since its creation, not to mention Stalin’s five year plan, plus by the end of the Second World War amounted to one of the 2 most powerful militaries on earth), ultra national security (NKVD), was constantly hunting potential enemies both outside and inside his border, and was very mistreatful of his wife, arguably making him sexist. So by ur logic of trying to define Fascism by a few arbitrary concepts which are all met by Stalin. Stalin must be a Fascist. Right?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "Then you don't understand what "communal" is.
Here, let me show you the definition 🤣
"shared by all members of a community; for common use."
"Now, is a dictatorship shared by all members of community for a common use? Of course not!" - Ironically it actually is when accounting for state members. State officials such as economists and military officials are not going to just work for nothing. Again that's how cues happen. So even the King, or Emperor, or Dictator still has to distribute the wealth to state members. And as I mentioned before a state is a community in it of itself. So it ironically does still hold a communal control. It's just the everyday citizen is not part of said community.
"There is no such thing as a one man state"
There is, actually. Absolute monarchy, Imperial Japan where the emperor was also a deity, and many other examples (the fuhrerprinzip is a strong candidate) are all "organised political systems that inherits a nation or territory." - Politically organized community. And no, not even those are "one man states." Why? Because they cannot enforce anything on their own. They still require economists, and military officials, tax collectors, and foreign diplomats. All of these put together make the state. Just because you lead the state, does not make you the entire state. Because without support from these keys to power, you having the throne is worthless. Since you were the first to mention Imperial Japan. Think of WW2. The Emperor was still seen as a diety, but he held little power by this point and the military administration with Prime Minister Tojo were the ones that actually held the power.
"This is all beyond you, obviously, because all you're capable of is reading ambiguous and incomplete dictionary definitions, misapplying them, and then ignoring definitions when it suits you. Because you are very, very dim." - I have not ignored definitions bud. And nothing is ambiguous about them. You are the one flat out trying to ignore definitions that don't suit you.
"Which is how you ended up claiming McDonalds was either a charity or government owned, and that "sought of all political revolution" mean was a coherent phrase." - Nope.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@romannazarov1975 "My point of view is that the world is changing. It is impossible to build a policy and claim that Russia is to blame for everything." - Most sensible people aren't blaming Russia for everything. Yes it is fair to say that NATO did not negotiate the matter as well as it should of, but considering that Putin was essentially just looking for an excuse to invade, it is clear no matter what we did or said, that Putin would of done it eventually regardless.
"At the moment, for the sake of the United States, thousands of lives are being brought in Ukraine, and European economies are also collapsing." - Something that needs to be fixed.
"The West deceived Ukraine, allowing it to think that it is capable of winning the war, and also raised an analogue of the Third Reich on its territory ..." - I don't know what you mean about the Third Reich shit, but yes I will agree that NATO did give Ukraine a false sense of security, and in that vain I agree NATO is in the wrong. However considering this is Russia we are talking about, we would not be able to keep said promises to Ukraine without risking WW3 in the process.
"NATO must return to the 1997 borders." - Um, why?
"For peace to come." - All that would do is weaken Eastern Europe to be at Russia's mercy yet again.
"The United States can no longer dictate its will to countries without taking into account other people's interests, in other words, the United States needs to re-learn to talk, not to order." - Ironic considering Putin basically ORDERED Ukraine not to try to join NATO.
"Europe is quite capable of being united and independent, and if it integrates with Russia, then the most ambitious peaceful project on the planet will turn out, with a single economic space!!!" - You are seriously deluding yourself there bud. No, even disregarding the economic state Russia is in, the Geopolitics in Europe would not allow it. Most European nations, especially ones in Eastern Europe, don't trust Russia. Not only because of their oppression crimes carried out under the USSR flag, but also because of the fact Russia kept backing anti government separatists.
"I think that the United States is most afraid of this scenario, they know that Russia always takes into account the interests of others and fulfills its promises!" - Right, so Putin is totally taking the interests of others into account when he is arresting protestors or funding insurrections, or invading multiple sovereign nations. Bud you are literally buying into Russian Propaganda.
1
-
@romannazarov1975 "The first is because Russia is asking for it," - So?
"because NATO was created as a defensive alliance against communism. And where is the communist USSR now." - Putin. That is where. A serpent can shed its skin, but it is still a serpent and if you look at what Putin is doing to Russia now, it is going to lead to the same thing again. Also China is still a thing.
"And certainly the advancement of NATO to the borders of Russia will not add security in Europe. " - It will to the nations in the alliance. Again you are trying to frame it like NATO forced or pressured these nations to join it when Eastern Europe nations went to NATO to join, not the only way around.
"NATO, having attacked Yugoslavia in 1999, discredited itself as a defensive alliance ..." - Just as Putin has discredited himself for only acting in the security of Russia when arresting his own people, invading Georgia, Crimea, and backing anti Ukrainian government separatists.
"It is foolish to tease a nuclear superpower that has supersonic missiles that cannot be shot down." - You mean missiles the USA also has?
"While the rest are only learning how to build supersonic missiles, Russia is already learning how to merge them." - Again missles USA and China also have.
"And no one knows what else is in service with Russia. " - We don't have to. If Russia uses nukes, its game over for everyone involved.
"Any negotiations are a search for compromises, do not think that by giving in to the request, Europe can receive security guarantees. In the meantime, everything is moving towards a third world war with a power that has an advantage in armament ..." - Which is trying to be avoided, but if it is inevitable, why would we already give Russia an advantage?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@realitymatters8720 "If the state is under communal/democratic control, how can it be said to be Totalitarian, and by this definition, every state that have ever had a national budget, would be a Totalitarian State, rendering the word "totalitarian" meaningless." - Totalitarian has nothing to do with dictatorships or democracies. It has everything to do with whether or not there is a separation from the state. "Everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
"But there is, as you say the possibility of a Socialist state, where power is exclusively yielded through the state.
Most Socialist systems that have been theorised, tries to avoid a strong state structure,,," - Well yes and no. Problem is most did want to use the state as a platform for implementation, they just thought the state would gradually sacrifice said power when no longer needed. This though is the fundamental flaw when applying socialism in practice, as once when that much power and control is surrendered to the state. Its almost never going to give it up. This is why the Soviets, Chinese, North Korean, etc needs to be considered socialism, because its attempts of implementing socialism into practice. Now if you would like to call them failed socialists, thats fine. But just because they tried and failed at a system, does not mean they aren't what they tried to put in.
"this perversly includes "Communism", where the basic idear are selfgoverning communes !" - Which pretty much only exists in a pipedream, but go on.
Y"ou still seem not to grasp the basic idear of Socialim. Power MUST be under Democratic control." - According to what? Pre Marx definitions of socialism did not specifically mention control being democratic. Also you do realize most of these systems were officially democratic, but again problem lies when you surrender too much power to one or a small group of people within the state.
"Totalitarian Socialism, Authoritarian Socialism, these ideas, are contradictions in terms." - Except they aren't. A state by definition is a politically organized community inhereting a nation or territory. There is no such thing as a one man state.
"They are systems that don't even have a theoretical basis for existence. And seem to be entirely used to discredit Socialism." - Except again that does not hold truth. Lenin did try to implement his interpretation of what Marx wanted, granted probably altered it to suit his needs, but my point still stands. Same goes for Mao, and Kim. The problem is you are not making a proper distinction from socialism in theory vs socialism in practice.
"This is why im not a Socialist, I like the idear, it is clearly the only moral system ever proposed." - I disagree with that strongly but I will respect your view.
"But it is also so idealistic that I cant realy imagine how it would work in practice." - It doesn't. From my POV it is a bad theory as a whole, and is nearly impossible to work in practice the way the theorists want it to work. Socialism doesn't work.
"Most people including myself just dont want to deal with politics all the time, im simply not social enough :) !" - That is fine, but it does fall to be able to analyze systems when put into practice. Because if we are going to say the slightest deviation prevents it from being that thing, then by that same logic, there has never truly been a capitalist system either. The problem you ignore is that often democracies are asserted to create the dictatorship. People often democratically want it. For instance in the German election of 1932, the Nazi party got more votes than any other individual party, despite the fact it was enabling a dictator. This is why democratic control in reality just leads to either blind mobs, or dictatorships. The thing that has stopped dictatorships in many areas is constitutional power, given that those are designed to be upheld regardless of people sways.
1
-
@realitymatters8720 "Social control over the means of production, is democratic control, you will find no movement before the Soviet Union created their doublespeak, that would have said anything else." - Not necessarily. Because that control was not always meant to be done through the entire nation democratically, but rather through concerned parties. Also as mentioned before, it falls under a community to enable the dictatorship. This is why the "Public Sector" is the state. Because the state is the representative body of a community and requires a community to be a state. Again no such thing as a one man state.
"Its realy easy, if it aint a Democracy it ain't Socialist." - Again that does not work for multiple reasons. A. You are implying that democratic only exists within an entire population. Most socialist nations did have democratic control but only within the party elite. This is where the corruption took swing. And a party elite is still a community and a state.
"Let me quote Hannibal lecter "what is it in its nature".
Why is this hard to understand, most 5 year olds know very well, that much they are told is complete bullshit,,, but somehow you cant grasp the simple fact that the Soviet Union lied about the nature of their system. And that the Capitalists used this lie to discredit Socialism, in the eyes of mentally lazy morons." - Except again, it isn't a lie. The Soviet Union tried and failed to implement socialism. But the same way you have a soccer player who loses the championship, trying and failing at something does not mean they were not seeking to do it. It only highlights what I mentioned before, socialism in theory is very different from socialism in practice. But both have to be factored in especially when it becomes a consistent pattern. Trying to disassociate failed socialists is the very reason why socialism keeps being advocated for. Because its easy to continue support of an ideology when you disassociate its attempts in practice rather than gaining an understanding that their failings were because of fundamental flaws with socialism as a concept.
"Btw. You are correct, if you are a Socialist, don't ever take power by force.. It has a really low success rate, to the tune of f...... zero !" - Which is what almost every socialist has to do. Because higher and middle classes aren't just going to peacefully surrender their property. Which leaves a socialist state with 2 options. Either take it by force which is what the Marxists did, or attempt to control them through state mandates, which is what Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, Modern day China, and Lockdown Europe and USA have been doing.
And this is where the concept of Totalitarianism has to be understood. Whether it is through a cue or the people willfully putting the dictatorship in power or giving the state ultimate control, it does not change that the ultimate control still happened. Giving the people more "Democratic Power," only further enables the dictatorship because of a very simple reason. Most people don't think for themselves in politics. They go by identity. The "Have faith in my side" or the "Opponent is the embodiment of evil". They essentially have been treating politics like religions and have associated their entire sense of self based on it. What people actually need is personal liberty within a strong constitution but limited state. Because the only way people are going to think for themselves is when they develop their ideas through achieving their goals themselves. This is why politics in modern day has based itself more on empty promises rather than long term plans and developments. Tyranny of the Majority is just as much Totalitarian as Tyranny of the Minority. Trying to say it's not socialism because its not "democratic" is ignorant that democracy is what creates the dictatorship. Lenin rose to power with an army that democratically supported him, Hitler rose to power through more Germans supporting him than any other party, Mussolini rose to power and stayed in power for over 20 years because of the mobs that supported him. And we are seeing right now in the United States people cheering for the very people stripping the constitutional rights away from us, all for the socialist paradise that the politicians know themselves will never come but will keep feeding the lie to keep themselves in the thrones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@e-man1634 "One of the most vexing issues, legal experts say, is whether states that ban abortions can legally punish women for leaving the state to get an abortion, or punish people who help them secure an out-of-state abortion.
This question is urgent because the justices, by overturning Roe, handed states the power to allow or ban abortion, leaving the procedure available only in a patchwork of states. Now, women who live in states without legal abortion might decide to seek the procedure in a state that permits it.
No state has yet enacted a law to ban this travel. But it has been attempted: In Missouri, a bill is pending that would enforce abortion restrictions through civil lawsuits if the abortion is administered outside the state."
As mention, if passed into law a state absolutely can do this. Now by all accounts for the case of abortion, no state has yet done this. But it is within their individual power to pass laws that enable prosecution of cross state crimes.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 1. A state is the body of the entire society. Key difference is a private entity u can leave and have others compete with, the state u can’t. One is decentralized, the other is completely centralized under an authoritarian monopoly. Once again profit is not the only aspect of capitalism. A state or community can very much make a profit just as much as an individual can, in fact most of the time it is expected to for long term investments and getting things back for what they risked.
2. A state by definition is an organized political community. It is by definition communal. Even a monarchy and dictatorship still require the community to maintain its rule. Any dumb ass can bark orders, but unless ur superman, ur going to need personal in economics, military, tax collecting, resource distribution, and foreign relations. No matter which way u try to slice it, there is no such thing as a one man state. Even a dictator technically isn’t a private owner.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "So, the best thing you can say about anarcho capitalism is it will fall into armed Feudalism, where wherever has the most guns becomes the state" - Eventually yes, which is why I already explained I am not an An Cap. Because that would be an inevitable problem. In fact that is the main problem with Anarchism in general is that it would effectively become a faction war.
"Who says you had the right to "make a farm" on that land, which I claim belongs to me?" - Do u seriously think it requires a right if the land was not claimed?
"Back to your magical transaction records. You have a transaction record saying property A belongs to you, I have one saying it belongs to me. What now? You keep ignoring his rather important point" - Except I didn't I already answered that either the situation would be sorted involving the 2 opposing people and any other concerned third parties or armed conflict would occur.
"No, the USA is a country. Now, why wasn't e.g. FDR and ethno-nationalist, given that he fought for the supremacy of the US?" - You answered your own question. US is not an ethnicity however Russian is.
"Once again, how many ethnicities were there in the Soviet Union? (You used the terms interchangeably, saying it was the same countries as Russia, remember?)" - The Russians were the most ethnically dominating of it, the culture was mostly pulled from Russia, and Russian was the primary language. Again its not as on the nose as Germany. But any nationality that also shares the same ethnicity is going to want uphold said ethnicity.
"How many ethnicities do you the think there are in Russia?" - Considering that it was an Empire, a few.
"I'm not slandering by saying you're stupid, as it is obviously true." - Except it isn't. Even if what I said there was wrong, ok that is one thing I got wrong. I do not recall getting one thing wrong the same as being stupid, otherwise by that logic, you are dumb for missing one question on a test. So whether u admit it or not, it was directed as a personal attack on me over debating a term. I could call you stupid for thinking that State Capitalism isn't oxymoronic despite the fact that Capitalism definition explicitly says not state control. But that would be taking the easy way out, and I have enough respect for opponents not to resort to slander if they do the same.
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "US is a country, you fucking idiot." - Damn, did I pull a string?
"A country with multiple ethnicities in it." - Almost every country has multiple ethnicities, especially first world one. Does not mean there is not a dominating ethnicity.
"So, like the US, Russia is a multi-ethnic state.In fact, the US is far more of an ethnostate given that English is the official language, while there were many in Russia. During FDR's time, certain ethnicities were treated differently by law." - I mean FDR could be considered partially one.
"How come he wasn't an ethno-nationalist, if Stalin was?
There's that stupidity of yours again." - Again, being wrong about one aspect does not make me stupid anymore than you being wrong about one aspect would make u. I can tell you are at this point getting emotional about this. There is a chance I could be wrong about Ethno Nationalism, in fact for the sake of argument, I'll admit I'm probably wrong about it and probably confused it with racism or xenophobia. But even if I am, my simple question would be, why would that only be associated with the right wing?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 first of all source, don’t just leave a quote without saying where the quote came from. Secondary, trying to pull gymnastics isn’t helping u. Most dictionaries use the definitions I laid out. And we can’t have a debate if we can’t even agree on the definitions of words. If I use the dictionary definitions and u come in saying “na uh, that ain’t true.” Then we have nothing to go off of. And the irony of your “it doesn’t reflect the real world” argument is I could use that to describe socialism in general. I usually don’t to avoid bias, but let’s think what most socialist nations were like in practice aka the real world. That’s right, Soviet Union, Mao’s China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela. U know what most of these had in common? Complete totalitarian control, dictator in power, suppression of speech and expression, camps/gulags, state monopoly over everything, highly militaristic, imperialistic, and often had some of the lowest standards of living out there. Funny how socialism was such a paradise, that Eastern Europe got away from it as soon as the Soviets let them go. Funny how socialism is such a good system that China had to gradually get away from it. Funny how socialism handled its economy so well that Venezuela has starving millionaires.
That’s socialism in the real world, arguably the only successful implementation came from Yugoslavia and even then Yugo still adopted a market value within its economy. Of course none of those were “Real Socialism” right? Sorry but if you are going to throw the “it doesn’t reflect the real world” bullshit argument then be prepared for that logic to be used against u as well. Now this is where i’m going to end things because it does no good to continue to debate with someone who can’t even agree on basic definitions. So cheers, and peace.
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "No, capitalism is not anti state control." -
Capitalism Definition: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
RATHER THAN BY THE STATE!!! I do not know how many times the definition has to be handed out before you get it.
"What it is is pro profit." - Private Owner control for profit. Again profit is one aspect but it already requires the private owner to be in control first.
"Now, if a worker's employer is profiting from their labour, it makes no difference whether the employer is a state-owned private company or an individual one." - And congrats, you summed why State Socialism more often than not fails. But this is where once again, socialism is not about the worker, I don't understand how many times this has to be explained to you.
"The quote is from Wikipedia. It matters not whether socialism is a good, what matters is that State Capitalism clearly exists, despite your ignorance-based objections." - Really, lets look at Wiki's definition of capitalism. " Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit." - Even Wikipedia a source generally considered pretty unreliable admits that capitalism requires private ownership.
"It is literally the state taking over the means of production on behalf of state appointed individuals, and continuing to operate a capitalist system." - It isn't capitalist. A state monopoly is not private owners controlling their own means of production. And as mentioned before, the state is public not private.
"One where the goal is accumulation of capital through buying the labour of the proletariat and selling what they produce at a profit." - U realize by ur logic every state in history is capitalist, because every single one generates a bit of profit to support itself.
"M-C-M/C-M-C still applies, so it operates on the same principles of Capitalism, but run by state appointed individuals, who individually benefit." - Weaponizing the state isn't capitalism. So no it isn't, the reason u think it is, is because you are thinking anything that makes profit is capitalism when it isn't.
"The profits aren't passed to the community." - Who builds the roads, the commodities, militaries?
"Hence, state capitalism." - Nope thats just a failed state. And all you would have to do is look into most socialist societies and understand that they fell into that corruption. Thats State Socialism.
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "You keep ignoring the "for profit" part." - Except I didn't every single time I laid out a definition to you, I included it. What you do is keep ignoring private owners, and RATHER BY THE STATE!!!! Like good God, can you not read?
"The state is running a private corporation for profit." - What corporation is that? The state isn't a corporation. And a State by definition is Public.
"Workers are employed and their surplus value is extracted as profit." - And? Again, its not about the workers. Its about who is in control.
"M-C-M/C-M-C still applies." - No it really doesn't.
"It is a capitalist mode of production, controlled by individuals within the state." - How ignorant you are. Just because there are individuals in an organization does not make it individually controlled. And it is as noted before private owners that are suppose to be in control. A state is A. a community, not an individual, and B. is not private. So by definition, it is not capitalist.
"Hence state Capitalism." - Again, Capitalism by definition is anti state control. State monopoly is not private ownership. You are failing to understand this basic logic because you are subscribing to Marx's concepts.
"Explain how it is different from any other sort of Capitalism as far as the worker and employer is concerned." - Ignoring that the employer isn't a private owner and there isn't a free market?
"You can't." - I very much can, once again capitalism and socialism are not inherent to employees and or workers. It accounts for who is in control.
"You don't understand what communal means, because you are incredibly stupid." - Once again throwing blind insult I see. And also hypocrite. You cannot say I do not understand definitions when you literally try to ignore the definitions laid out to you.
"Communal means everyone." - Everyone within that community. A state represents everyone. By definition.
"If a small group within a larger one controls everything, that's not communal or community control." - It is when they have the technical authority to represent said community. The German government represents the German people. The only time these things are put into question is a time of civil war or if the state came to power illegitimately.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@slaterslater5944 "And there you go ignoring the "for profit " aspect again." - BY PRIVATE OWNERS!!!! Again actually look up the fucking definition!
"No, a state running a corporation is not public. It is being run by and for private functionaries within the state who are taking the profit." - Again a state is by definition a public entity. That's why the concepts of Nationalization and socialization existed. Once when the state takes control of the means of production. It is no longer private control.
"A state does not represent everyone, by definition." - Represent DEF: be entitled or appointed to act or speak for (someone), especially in an official capacity.
"Does the Chinese state represent the Tibetan people?" - Foreign occupation so false equivalence. Because that puts it legitimacy in question.
"You are desperately trying to confuse state, community, communal etc." - No I'm not. And ur trying to confuse state with private owner. A state is not private, is a community by definition and by all accounts represents the people in it.
"Because you ar both dishonest and stupid" - Really, where did I lie? Also again, u keep misdefining capitalism which specifically by definition excludes the state. But of course you'll ignore that because it does not suit your argument. And as mentioned before, I can do the blind insult game too. Act like an adult and keep the debate professional, if you can't do that then you need to GTFO. I consider you incredibly misguided but I am not going to throw blind insult over disagreement and debate. But keep up your attitude and I won't be so hosbilital.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
"My family used to spend Passover as a kid with another family. The mom was born like her husband in the 20's. Mrs. Frank had no polio vaccine as a kid like we have now invented in the 50's. She was an adult. Did she end up in an iron lung? Thank goodness no! Did she have two leg braces or one. Neither. But she did have a noticeable limp and as she grew older used a can sometimes. Her son and daughter were born in the years my brother and I were. 1956 and 1955. They lived in my state of Ohio. WE kids had to get our Polio vaccine at school. Don't know why don't care! There was none of this one shot! None of this vaccine on sugar. We had an injector with 40-50 needles AT ONCE! Didn't feel a thing. Mrs. Frank never said well I survived Polio with just a limp my kids will not be vaccinated. A) she didn't want to risk her kids and B) she had no choice! No vax no school entry. NO coddling and no politicization. My brother, me, the Frank kids ALL got our Polio vaccines with 40-50 needles at once. Not ONE of us contracted Polio! Not ONE of us had any side effects! Mom's trick was get vaxxed, come home, take a couple of those nasty chewable aspirins at the time and off to bed! No fevers or chills." - Good for u that was ur and ur mom's choice. Not everyone was so lucky.
"So get vaxxed get boosted come home take an aspirin and you'll be fine." - Not all of them are.
"But let's be clear here. The arguments against vaccines have nothing to do with them itself. It's about another lovely stupid culture war to bellyache about!" - Not really, its about infringement on freedoms. If the government knew to leave people alone, then this would not be a problem.
"Meanwhile we're close to 800K DEAD! A thousand hospitalized a day! Other countries have it bad so yeah!" - Like that is much more than the normal death toll per year.
" Lock down vaccine mandates!" - Nope.
"And don't give me this rag about mandates being tyranny!" - Because it is.
"Tyranny is jailing you for no vaccine shot taken." - Right the same way a business owner can lose his business be fined and jailed for not enforcing such mandates? LOL
"See anyone arrested? Anywhere? NO!" - Yes.
"Tyranny is grabbing the unvaxxed, forcing them into a chair, tying you down and jabbing! How many has that happened to anywhere! Not ONE country!" - It never starts with the genocide. Remember the persecution against the Jews by Nazis did not start in the Concentration Camps. It may not happen now, but give the government enough power and they eventually will resort to that.
"Oh shame on my boss! He'll force me to vax!" - No shame on the politicians making him enforcing it under the threat of losing his or her business. Amazing, how we lost ownership over our own businesses because the government wants to move the pawn pieces.
"Get outta here!" - Ur the one in here.
"You have the choice of vaxxing, masking, testing on the bosse's dime not yours!" - Except in many states u don't.
"You have the choice of quitting or being fired." - Except u don't. Its not like u can get another job if this is enforced anywhere and how else do u suggest paying rent and getting food on the table?
"After all your boss doesn't owe you a job!" - No but the government owes the boss that choice.
"And you won't get unemployment and they'll ask! Vaxxing, testing, masking are the rules of employment. They don't owe you a job but they DO have to make sure you don't get sick and die being exposed at work!" - No they don't.
workplace
"If you want to get sick and die that's your choice but don't expose others!" - They don't, they just don't want a mandated vaccine either and I don't blame them.
"That ISN'T your right!" - It actually kinda is. Its their right not to have their personal autonomy violated.
"Stay out of the hospital if you're unvaxxed and get Covid! You're taking up bed space because the quack cures that don't work you take you demand care!" - What? LOL.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1