Capital would flee. Your currency would collapse. An iPhone would cost as much as a doctor's annual salary in your system.
Any more questions?
Yes please. Tell me what capital would flee and how? That's the one red flag all the capitalists are always swinging like a Damocles sword and I find it very funny as it makes no sense whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Now that you have used your red herring distraction card, what about the rest of the criticism? Or are you just going to run from that too?
So when I put what you say and the proof you're lying it's red herring? xD The red herring is as much a debate tactic as it is a logical fallacy. It is a fallacy of distraction, and is committed when a listener attempts to divert an arguer from his argument by introducing another topic https://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/red-herring/I don't think taking your quote then what I said and proving you're lying is a logical fallacy... For the rest of the "argument"... It's as constructive as what I'm used to read when you write... I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck? Meritocracy serves EVERYONE by making sure the people who are the best at their jobs are the ones doing those jobs.
Wanna talk about your burden of proof here? Because the recent work of social studies especially on bullshit jobs is clearly not going this way... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/25/bullshit-jobs-a-theory-by-david-graeber-reviewYou suffer from the delusion that society created nature, not that nature created society. You are in effect saying that thousands of years of human history were wrong, we just now invented a better way that you can't really explain in detail, but trust me its great! Bold claims require bold substantiation, especially when you are talking about meddling with the bedrock of our economy.
... Like what the hell are you talking about? You're saying that capitalism is how humans worked in the last millions of years? If so please just... Just stop writing xD Or prove that claim because this claim is... Ridiculous. Capitalism is a modern invention. It has... What? two or three centuries of existence? Let's say 3000 of years if you reaaaaaaaaaally take a LARGE definition. And modern capitalism which means capitalism + globalism has one century at best.
Not all success is self made, and neither are all failures. However more often than not the people who strive the hardest and the most skill are more likely to succeed.
Empty statement. What you say is litterally "people who work more and are more skilled are more likely to succeed". More likely than who? Ah first time you write something a bit interesting. Let's say I don't question your source at all and everything you write above is completely right. I quote your source "when it came to behavioral variables was that both genetic and environmental influences were important, often at close to a 50/50 split in terms of magnitude." Genetic abilities are distributed in a rather uniform way around humanity, which means the only relevant factor to determine equality of opportunities will be the environmental influence thanks for proving my point. In other words: if genetics and environments have about the same importance in the construction of a human being, genetics being distributed randomly means the only factor explaning inequalities is the environment. This is just par for the course for you though. You use a strict policy of responding with logical fallacies while accusing your opponent of the same deeds you yourself are committing straight out of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals". You accuse others of not using logic then proceed to rely on assumptions, ad hominem attacks, and refractory responses.
Hmm... Nothing to comment here I've proven you're lying and debunked you false logical fallacies accusation like the good old red herring. Is that enough? I'm not sure I'll do it again, it's taking time for a troll... |
|
|
|
This means you have presented the premise that Socialism/Communism are good, therefore you are the one who has the requirement in logical debate to support your premise with empirical data.
No I haven't... God if anyone needs a better example of what I mean by polluting with non constructive circular debate I can't do, that's litteraly the m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
m0gliE: I'm not talking about this
TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!!
I was talking about. It's happening right now!!! |
|
|
|
I see so, your success is your own, and you earned it, but his success is luck?
Just posting this because it seems you have hard time understanding why I say you're a troll that doesn't even read others: Was my success mine? Sure. I worked my ass off and my parents too! They sacrificed themselves for me that's for sure. I believe I'm both smart and capable and the company paying me is sure happy to do so.
But more than any of that, I was lucky. And I really wish you were able to see how lucky you were in your success. How you were not rewarded on your merit but on your luck. And how horrible and unfair it is that millions of people, who were born with the same or even better abilities than yours, were not so lucky.
|
|
|
|
Japanese will not accept refugees. The refugees, especially from the Middle East, have nothing to offer to Japan. Their average IQ is 30-40 points below the average IQ of the Japanse population.
And as IQ is mainly genetic and not at all environmental and educational your statement is extremely relevant  Proof being that your IQ doesn't change at all during your life and education, that's why tests are the same through all your life |
|
|
|
So what we have to kill each other? Doesn't sound very good to me...
Isolation from their fake news sources and education regarding the world helps. Normally, more educated people tend to have more of a world view, and therefore lean more liberal. Arguably, this could be a solution to a lot of the right's rhetoric. Judging one ideology over the other isn't the point of this thread  I don't know who's right and who's wrong. I just want to know if some people changed their opinion a bit in this board or if we're discussing for nothing  |
|
|
|
I'd love to debate the subject with you if you want to be constructive!
Ironically, but not at all surprising, the only trolls here are the one's consistently calling others trolls, and flagging (or deleting) messages with which they disagree. If you actually cared to debate you wouldn't have started a self moderated thread, you would welcome divergent points of view. I do and you can see it in the original thread. Other people have VERY different points of view like mrcash02 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5073229.msg48281103#msg48281103I just don't want the trolls that's all. The discussion with TECSHARE was nowhere near constructive nad was just polluting the thread. Just read our questions and answers it's litterally m0gliE: I'm not talking about this TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!! m0gliE: I'm not talking about this TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!! m0gliE: I'm not talking about this TECSHARE: yes you are! prove this!!! I call that non constructive. But the whole "Progressive" and "Liberal" lot of you aren't interested in debate. You are only interested in proselytizing your religion, spreading your lies, and fertilizing your propaganda.
All as you subvert dissenting points of view. Not very liberal or progressive of you, in my opinion.
I don't think of myself as liberal or progressive so I don't take it as an insult. |
|
|
|
I'll have to take a look cause I'm always very dubious of statement concerning "different brains". Sounds too easy to me. Pretty much we're not going to be able to introduce ANY new information regarding the situation because they view the world in an entirely different light.
That's a terrible conclusion which would mean there is no way for the two groups to reach to an agreement... So what we have to kill each other? Doesn't sound very good to me... I do hope there can be some evolution, did you experiment some? I know my view on US elective system or their constitution have evolved a bit. Also on weapons freedom in a democratic country. I'd just like to know if some others experimented changes in their opinion, otherwise this board is a bit useless don't you think? |
|
|
|
I thought the United Nations was formed to invade countries to force the removal of elected governments, and to promote the sale of US armaments.
Most accurate statements of the United Nations I ever read. Can you add the IMF in please? |
|
|
|
And I am yet to be presented any argument against socialism + direct democracy... mrcash02 is arguing this point right now but I haven't seen anything from you.
No to just direct democracy; liquid democracy is way better. It has the benefits of representative democracy (for apathetic voters) and allows the freedom of direct democracy (for those that are interested in politics). It's quite a revolutionary system that needs implemented in our House of Representatives. The sooner its implemented; the sooner Americans can have their interest represented. You got any link to that? I've never heard of this so I'm pretty interested! |
|
|
|
|
Hello world!
Considering the incredibly heated arguments currently ongoing in the different threads I follow, I'm wondering something: is there a point to the exchanges in Politics & Society?
I mean in some threads there have been cleared and objective arguments given by some, and the opposite party most of the time finished by insulting the other without answering the argument.
That can happen with people like TECSHARE and BADecker but I don't think anyone expects to make those change there minds as they're closer to bots than to human beings.
But has anyone ever seen his opinion changed thanks to the exchange in this board?
I have, a bit, with Trump, but I can't say it's by a big way.
Are our discussions here useful or are we just a group of baboons throwing shit while waiting for other baboons to comfort us in our opinions?
|
|
|
|
I was lucky because I escaped the communist regime. You moron.
I am done talking to you idiots.
Go fuck yourself, I hope you die poor surrounded by hard-working people who will flash their wealth in your fucking face.
You guys are comedians. Go talk to people who lived under both systems and you will understand better what you are proposing.
Tss... And I'm the one without argument? Continue to lie to yourself if that makes you feel better. I'll die surrounded by a few hard-working people who will flash their wealth, a lot of average people lucky enough to be born in rich families and thus being rich, and a tremendeous amount of people poor as fuck even though they work until they die just because capitalism works this way. Currently my place is on the hard working lucky people... But I'm not delusional contrary to you so I know my share in my success is small compared to my luck and my environment. But it's sure easier thinking you're so great while everyone failing is a moron. You feel like you're the good guy right? |
|
|
|
+1
The privileged (probably white, middle-class kids) arguing about socialism. They have no fucking idea what socialism or communism is.
If you lived under both socialist/communist and capitalist systems you would understand the fundamental flaws and benefits of each system.
They should interview people who lived in socialist and communist regimes.
Instead, they think they "got it", and their interpretation of socialism will work (no matter the evidence to contrary) if they would only get a chance to implement it "properly". LOL.
These guys are a joke. Comedians really.
I described your delusion a bit upper man ^^ I know that socialism is what allowed me to be where I am. I wouldn't have the money to pay for my college without socialism. My dad's first company went bankrupt and by the time he made a more successfull attempt I already had my diploma. Do you suggest that it wasn't thanks to socialism? There are good and bad sides to both systems and I'd say socialism outweigth capitalism on the good side, although it is again not the main point of this post but all the liberal economist of the forum are trying to argue that so I have to answer this off topic subject... And I am yet to be presented any argument against socialism + direct democracy... mrcash02 is arguing this point right now but I haven't seen anything from you. |
|
|
|
Hey that's actually a good idea! I'll post the link to this thread  If I just wanted to censore you I would have deleted your comments AND edited my answers. I just don't see how you're making a cosntructive debate so I kicked you out of my self moderated thread cause talking without trying to make a logical debate I call that trolling. And I think the length of your post proves that I really wanted to discuss with you it's just that (In my opinion) you made it impossible or at least not interesting and cosntructive. But a separated thread is a very good solution and I'm always happy to debate if you want to  I'd love to debate the subject with you if you want to be constructive! |
|
|
|
It seems that I need to correct some of your views.
Don't you dare correct anything of what the great lord Techshare says, he can't be wrong you should know it  Some of you may have been following the events in South Africa....
Actually I doubt if anyone on this forum has any familiarity with the S. African events. One addition, the Chinese are not pushing communism. They are on a campaign to acquire raw materials sources. Mines, oil, etc. They are happy to outright buy these where possible; in other cases, anything goes. For example imperialist aggression. Yes it can include backing local communist initiatives. It's worldwide, heavy in Australia also. But the local SA push to steal the land from the whites wasn't a Chinese initiative, not at all. There is nothing in common between SA government and Chinese communism. ANC is part of the socialism international which goal is to implement democratic socialism, not communism. I mean the current SA president is a businessman, so much for communism --' I'd say Chinese are just seeing an opportunity in a struggling country. SA just ended appartheid 25 years ago, it's a relatively extremely new and fragile country and Chinese are just taking the train... USA destabilizes countries and invade them to place dictators, China buys everyone and everything. Two imperialist power with different action pattern, don't know what is worse ^^ |
|
|
|
Just out of curiousity, how do you explain this guys: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/I mean rise of CO2 is quite obviously linked to human activities right? And temperature rise is also quite obvious: https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/The link between the two of course, is nearly impossible to prove. But if that's not the CO2 then what is it? Because there is an EXCELLENT explanation of why the CO2 might make the temperature rise, so if you say "it's not true" it means you have something else that is an even better explanatio nright? |
|
|
|
Of course you agree with the OP. He removes any dissenting opinions, then justifies eliminating arguments he has no reply to by calling those that challenge his ideas trolls. So much for Communism not being totalitarian right? Communists seem to have a fetish about censoring ideas that call their precious lord and savior Communism into question.
Quoting you for the people who might read this thread later. All of what you said is in previous answers because I answered each and every claim you made one by one. If there is a single argument missing please notify me I'll edit this post. I'm deleting your comments because I consider that your aggressive behaviour without any logic (you're not being logic, you talk as if everyone should know the strange hypotethises you have in your mind...) is just trolling. You're being circular and ignoring that the point of this OP is NOT that communism is the answer, but that socialism should be studied deeply to see if the combination of socialism and direct democracy could produce an interesting result. I'm not even saying it WILL I'm saying I don't see how it can't be better than what we have currently. If you want to discuss how stupid communists are create your own thread. And deleting your aggressive comments while keeping all the arguments in previous quotes is NOT censoring in any way... EDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0 if you're interestedEDIT: Since TECSHARE and I have don't have the same definition of trolling I removed his posts from the thread but he ahd the good idea to post them on another one. You can find our arguments there https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5076948.0 if you're interested |
|
|
|
I totally agree with what you said, and now they call themselves communist countries. They are not real communism. They are closer to the political power of the party state. The so-called party state means that the "party" is higher than the government, so their biggest problem is their governments, military, and large enterprises are all controlled by the party.
If you have been to any communist country, you will find that the actual top leaders in these countries are not the president/prime minister, but the general secretary of the party. The highest commander of their army is not the commander but the political commissar. The highest decision-making level of the company is not the board of directors but the party committee of the company.
This is a little different from dictatorship, they are usually not personal dictatorships, but a collective dictatorship. That is to say, there will still be struggles for power in their interiors. If most party members oppose their general secretary, then it is very likely that the general secretary will be overthrown and a new general secretary will be produced, but personal dictatorships are usually not overthrown from within.
It's like communist countries managed to make even dictatorship innefficient |
|
|
|
Communism alone leads to dictatorship anyway...
How coul communism in a direct democracy lead to dictatorship? I really don't see how it's possible would you mind enlightening me here?  Not everyone is interested in politics to rule the country they live, and many of the citizens don't have enough knowledge to say how things must be done in several sectors (economy, security, health, education, etc...), so it's normal to have representants, that have a similar opinion to the voters, but that are better prepared to work for the country, on the front.
There are many people who just want to work daily, earn money and buy stuff to thrive in life, they don't care about politics, ideologies, they just want to live in a confortable society, with the highest quality as possible. And if the person doesn't care about political choices, he/she won't have any idea about it, so it's better he/she won't have any power... Otherwise it can be a disaster.
Three main ideas you have here: -First, politicians are more capable that the averag Joe that's why it's good they make the decision. I think you're extremely wrong here, I don't know how it's done in your country but in mine one guy can be minister of education one day (without having even worked in this sector before) then minister of the environment another day (without having worked or studied in this sector before). Most of our politicians are DEEPLY incapable. Maybe your country managed to assure your leaders have some skills if show I'd love to hear how they're doing this! -Second, that representants are somehow on the same line as their voters. Here again it's completely false in my country and an Harvard studies on American democracy showed how false it was in USA. Representants in USA vote laws at 70% on the line with the 1% most wealthy people in the country and 30% on the line with their voters. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B The representants represent mainly (if not only) the wealthy people, not the people who voted for them. -Third, people need representants because they don't have time or knowledge or the will to take the matters in their own hands. Well I'd say that's a huge problem because a citizen who doesn't care about politics is not a citizen. I mean it in no offensive way, citizen means duties, the first of these duties being taking part of the city and the country life. If you don't want to care about politics no problem, but that means you're just an inhabitants of the country, not a citizen. So you shouldn't vote at all. Problem being that today, as people vote only every 3 to 5 years, people who don't care AT ALL about politics have as much weigth in political decisions as people actually caring. The same is said about Democracy, all of us have an equal share of power, and actually that doesn't guarantee benefits. If there are 100 corruptible politicians it's because a big parcel of those 50 millions voted for them, so they are somehow in agreement with those practices.
In other words, if the biggest part of the population is corrupt, illiterate, alienated the whole country will suffer, because they are the majority. And the few guys who could raise the country will be smashed because the minority's opinion doesn't matter.
From this perspective, the Communist system you say is similar to the Democracy we have, with the difference there wouldn't be representants. So instead of electing corrupt politicians, the corrupt people would be acting directly, messing everything around...
You're completely right here! They are indeed responsible at least in part for the corrupt politicians. But why? Well again I don't know where you're from but in my country, it's not a democracy. We call it a democracy because we're used to calling it that way, but that's more an elective monarchy. You elect a king and then you can't do ANYTHING for 5 years as he has all the power and accounts to no one. People are powerless. Hence they're no longer involved in political life. To give you an example, our previous president was elected by only 40% of the population, the 60% either didn't vote for him, or didn't vote at all. Why should they even vote? Whatever politicians say there is no way they'll be true to their words. We have choice but without responsability. We have vote but we have no power. We're not complete hence we're not trying to become real citizens. We're just a small part of a big machine working without us... |
|
|
|
I don't get it. Are you proposing "no private or state property" rule?
Who exactly will control all the properties with no identifiable owners?
Without owners, it will be a complete chaos and anarchy. People will walk into a place where you sleep (since we cannot call it your house) and take your personal belongings since they don't belong to you, your TV, the bed you sleep on, your car, your grandfather's watch etc. and you will have to agree to it since those things don't really belong to you.
Is this what you are proposing? People sharing everything they used to own with other people?
Criminal gangs would control everything in no time. Wild West all over again.
I think this is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. It is worse than a communist state idea.
Not at all. First thing I'm proposing is a direct democracy, which would get rid of corruption and cooperation between governments and big corporations. Second thing I would propose is more of a nation-owned company concerning the basic needs (health, food, education, real estate...). Which doesn't mean that those companies shouldn't exist without private competition. I'm all in for private companies if they want to compete with national companies no problem with that. But the most important thing here is that I say we need the first thing and... We might try the second. But once the first thing is done then who am I to decide on the second one? I don't see how anyone could refuse the direct democracy with any kind of logical argument. But the social economy system I have in mind is just an idea of how organising our society. We might go in a totally different direction if that's what is wanted. The important thing is the direct democracy, which would already make our CURRENT situation so much better... Reducing the power of big corporation in an incredible way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
