81 replies to this topic

[Darkademic]

You've never provided any evidence except a few videos which don't mean anything and could be countered by any given Chomsky or Socialist youtube video.

This is quite telling. How do you know they don't mean anything if you don't watch them..? You are not interested in debate, nor the truth. I own and have read all of Marx's works and a fair bit of Chomsky - how much Mises, Rothbard, Hayek, Reisman etc. have you read? I'm curious if you've even read Das Kapital actually.

[Placidarm]

You realise Marx was actually very bourgeois, so this line of reasoning is actually shooting yourself in the foot.

How? And Engels was the 'bourgeoisie' one, but only to fund Marx. Marx died in poverty in London, having spent his life fighting and writing for revolution in London, Paris, etc. Anyway, I don't even know if I am what you'd call a 'Marxist'. But then again you have a strange perception of Marxism.

This is hilarious. You are arrogant in assuming I am rich when I am certainly not.

Ok, so whats your situation?

Is there any point in even continuing this? Its now just got down to us screeching at each other that we don't know shit about shit, you're going off track and what not, and we're disagreeing on where this debate is going. I don't want to be dragged into some offshoot debate about your right to exist because I see it as a cop out when you don't want to argue economics anymore, and you think I'm ignorant of the facts.

I just think its entirely obvious that capitalism has failed, the less you restrain it to more of a failure it becomes, and your idea is not a rational political or philosophical believe but instead a defense of privilige which will only come from wealthy intellectuals. I adovcate a system or voluntary co-operation which eliminates tyranny and oppresion (a word you beleive means nothing even though I've explained what it means).

[Darkademic]

I am almost certain I have less money than you. It makes no difference since income and financial status has no bearing on truth.

My question is not an offshoot, it is the first question I posed to you, and is a very important question in politics because it effectively determines what kind of political system is morally right.

I don't understand why you are avoiding it.

Politics deals with which kind of socio-economic system is best. This implies, best for whom and for what?

It is then necessary to ask whether I, as a human being, have the right to exist as a free individual, free to choose how I live my life (and thus reciprocating this right to all other human beings), or whether I do not, meaning I am subservient to the state, the people, the majority, the nation, the race, God or the tribe.

Your entire ideology rests on one of these premises, now which is it?

[Placidarm]

Once more, I'm not going to answer a question when I can answer either yes or no when it is clearly put forward as a means of making me look wrong whatever I argue. To be hoenst, I don't understand what you're talking about here.

My ideology rests on my observation of the world, limited as it is, my reading on the conditions of people in the world and solutions and different methods and how they've been applied, and my basic morality, I.e. that its wrong to harm other people unless you are forced too in self defense. I believe suffering is wrong. Capitalism causes suffering, capitalism harms people, because it leads to poverty. Obviously I have more than that to back my ideas up but that's my basics. that's where my worldview comes from.

[Darkademic]

If we can keep these short replies I'd appreciate it. I think we can probably make more progress this way.

So, you honestly don't know what I'm talking about? Fair enough.

Are you saying you think your ideology has nothing to with morality?

Well you made an ethical statement by saying it is wrong to harm other people, except in self-defense. I certainly agree with this statement.

Following from this, you are saying that I DO have a right to exist for my own sake, and that force used against me is wrong. Does this sound reasonable to you?

[Placidarm]

What do you mean by right to exist for your own sake?

[Darkademic]

What do you mean by right to exist for your own sake?

It just means one has the right to choose one's own course of action. Am I free to do as I choose? (Please note this must be reciprocal to be valid, so it implies that I cannot pursue action which violates another person's freedom to do the same). Another way of putting it would be "am I free to take action based upon my decisions?"

[Hammerfallfan]

My ideology rests on my observation of the world, limited as it is, my reading on the conditions of people in the world and solutions and different methods and how they've been applied, and my basic morality, I.e. that its wrong to harm other people unless you are forced too in self defense. I believe suffering is wrong. Capitalism causes suffering, capitalism harms people, because it leads to poverty. Obviously I have more than that to back my ideas up but that's my basics. that's where my worldview comes from.

Your ideology consists of absorbing lies, seeing what you want to see, ignoring basic theory and advocating poison as poison's cure.

All forms of Socialism, including Fascism, National Socialism and Communism are totalitarian, they make economic calculation impossible and they trap people in poverty . They also lead to war and to genocide. All of this, you ignore.

Your use of the term Capitalism is meaningless because you do not define it and use it in contradictory fashion.

[Hammerfallfan]

Typical arogance you rich kids show. You can have a political debate without going into epistemology and metaphysics. You know what I meant, stop flexing your inflated ego, stop using pointless denounciations of Marxism when you clearly lack an udnerstanding of what it is and move out of your bubble into the real world.

Marx and Engels were among the richest men of their day. I work as a contractor on an oil refinery and am by no means rich. Your argument is a dishonest ad hominem.

Any poverty Marx experienced was because he refused to work and he relied on Engels to support him.

[Hammerfallfan]

Stalin does not count. That was, and I know you hate this term ebcause it debunks alot of your arguments, authoritarian state capitalism. Stalin was not a socialist and the USSR was not socialism.

Pol Pot does not count, anyone with logic knows that. No workers control, etc. He was a mental dictator who called himself a socialist.

This is all irrelevant anyway because all those who killed people who were also socialists were not examples of 'Socialism killing people', let alone 'Communism' killing people.

Despostic dictators who thought or said they were socialists/communists does not equal socialism or communism.

Its been authoritarian State capitalism calling itself socialism, dictatorship of the proletariat, communist, etc.

Such murder has never been seen by Anarchists, as in people who have self identified as Anarchist and have lived what they have believed in, Anarchism being the current of socialism I follow the most, so down the loo goes your myth of communism killing people.

The deaths caused by malnutrition, disease, poverty, lack of healthcare etc from the effects of capitalism however... well I could go on all day, seeing as capitalism is an unequal distribution of wealth and if this wealth was distributed according to socialist and communist principles, such deaths would be avoided.

So yeh, capitalisms killed millions, communism has never killed an innocent person. Make sure you've read the above before getting all excited and quoting a page of statistics of deaths under Mao in China, etc.

Have I won this now guys? I'd like to know you're all in the grave before I start debating philosophy with Darkreaver13, seeing as that's what he's moving onto.

Remember, stating you've won and cutting off your response to the debate does not count as winning! Quite the opposite

This is the final dishonesty. You set up a dishonest term known as 'State Capitalism' which has a meaning, implied usually, identical to that of Socialism. You can then point at the genocide of socialism and say 'Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini, Pol Pot et al were all capitalists!'

You have been called time and again as a liar and you are found out.

[Placidarm]

If you want to ignore history, you can do so. It doesn't really matter because I don't idolise Marx, just

Fascism is not socialism. They are two different ideologies. You're clearly politically ignorant. Look it up, please, and you'll see. Fascists despise socialism, socialists despise .fascism,
National socialism was not socialism either. Hitler created his own idea of 'socialism' in which he encouraged small businesses.
Fascism encourages a ruling class, end to trade unions, no non-white people, etc. Socialism is democratic control of the economy and no private property, etc.
Fascism relies on a strict heirachial system with the power being in the hands of a few.

You have the right to exist freely as long as you do not restirct anyone elses liberty. If you're paying someone for less than they should be paid, like under capitalism, you're restricting their liberty. And your free market will keep power in the hands of a few. What good is 'liberty' if you're dying of poverty or working a job you hate for someone more priviliged than you? Its not freedom.

You do not have a right to practice capitalism.

[Hammerfallfan]

Read through most of this post now and it's annoying me.

Not because the arguments are wrong but because it started off as such a nice debate and now it's just a flame war with a load-o-communists shouting and a load of capitalist saying "meh".


Toodles.

Just rang Clairvoyant Carl and he says "you lose".

Communism, like all forms of Socialism, is irrational and totalitarian. Marxism openly denies reason.

[Darkademic]

You have the right to exist freely as long as you do not restirct anyone elses liberty. If you're paying someone for less than they should be paid, like under capitalism, you're restricting their liberty. And your free market will keep power in the hands of a few. What good is 'liberty' if you're dying of poverty or working a job you hate for someone more priviliged than you? Its not freedom.

You do not have a right to practice capitalism.

Then you advocate force and totalitarianism. If I am not free to start a business, through my own effort, and then select a wage which I deem appropriate to pay my employees, then I am a slave to the whims of those in control, be it a government or the majority.

You are saying that you know what people "should" be paid, and you are entitled to force people to do so. An employer will offer a particular wage, and you are free to accept it or go elsewhere - at no point is the employer forcing you to take the job, and if you find it is insufficient after taking it, you can quit.

Your argument fails because it can be applied to anything, for example, those who do not possess a college education, or a television, or a fancy car, or a large house. The lack of these could be called a "restriction of liberty" because your definition of liberty is wrong; it requires both positive and negative rights which cancel each other out.

[Placidarm]

It's not totalitarian. Look up the definition of the word.

In a communist society we'd have had a revolution to get rid of capitalism because the people deicded they no longer wanted it, because they saw it is close to slavery, it is abusive, it is oppresion, it is privilige for the few and barbaric.

Like how in modern society, we use force to control and restrain people who commit crimes like murder, in communism, we will not allow capitalism to come back.

No one will want it too, no one will allow it too. The people will have recognised it is what got them into the state they were in in which they needed a revolution to get rid off. Its the same as how now, if you tried to reimplement feudalism or slavery you'd be imprisoned. Because its a crime, and everyone sees that we've advanced beyond that. Under communism, people would not allow you to harm people, the way people are harmed through capitalism.

If you really wanted ot try capitalism, we'd tell you to go start it somewhere else. All the communes would reject you though, because they'd realise capitalism = slavery and poverty, control and restriction.

[Darkademic]

It's not totalitarian. Look up the definition of the word.

to·tal·I·tar·I·an
1 a: of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian , dictatorial ; especially : despotic.
b: of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures.

Yep, totalitarian. Centralized control of the economy by "the workers". You have already admitted individuals would not be free to work solely for the benefit of whomever they choose. The forced seizure and redistribution of wealth and subsequent control over the production and trade is totalitarian. You are a totalitarian. Your proposed system is indistinguishable from that of Stalin and Mao other than by the number of people in your coercive regime. You want to control what is being produced, who produces it and how much is produced. Your system has been tried and it has been a tragic, disastrous failure.

cap·I·tal·ism
1 a: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

so·cial·ism
1 a: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

What you call state capitalism (which is akin to me calling capitalism "individualist socialism" or "privatized socialism") is actually the same thing as socialism - a planned, regulated, restricted, totalitarian economy. That is what you are advocating - it does not matter who is doing the planning, whether it's your council of workers or a singular dictator; the results will be exactly the same. The votes of your worker cabal override the decisions of the individual do they not?

This debate can go no further until you renounce this totalitarianism, because there is no defense for it, it is pure evil.

[Hammerfallfan]

, and everyone sees that we've advanced beyond that. Under communism, people would not allow you to harm people, the way people are harmed through capitalism.

If you really wanted ot try capitalism, we'd tell you to go start it somewhere else. All the communes would reject you though, because they'd realise capitalism = slavery and poverty, control and restriction.

A reversal of reality. You have managed to identify all the communist, socialist and fascist regimes as capitalist and now you are trying to say that capitalism means control and restriction while communism is freedom. Next, the Pope will be a protestant, Muslims will be fine wine connoisseurs who, along with the Jews eat bacon all day, hippos make the best ballet dancers, Kangaroos are made of lead, Polar Bears are sky blue and things are not what they are but they are what they are not.

You have been reduced to talking utter mince.