What you mean to point to is irrelevant. The fact is even if the resources were more evenly distributed, you know what would happen? Human population would just continue to increase infinitely until there were not enough resources for anyone. You aren't solving anything, you are describing a fantasy.
Sure because that's exactly what's happenin in countries where ressources are distrubuted in a more human way. Clearly western countries see their population raising without control that's exactly what's happening  I never said anyone deserves anything. Facts are facts regardless of what anyone deserves. Your so called studies are based in Sociology, which first of all is the least scientific of any school of science,
Hey doctor bullshit, long time no seen! So Sociology is not a science, well now that you said so I'm clearly convinced! You must be right and universities are really full of dumb people if they believe the contrary. Your argument is very logical and makes sens for sure. but this specific debate of nature vs nurture you are pointing to is an ancient and never-ending debate no where near being concluded.
Except for the FACT that social mobility is insanely low showing that either environment is more important than genetics or that poor people are sub humans. Your choice to believe what you want. Your so called studies regarding this mean nothing even if they were valid, because the premise itself (that it is proven one way or the other) is flawed.
Duuuuuuuuuumb. The conclusion of the studies might be discussed but not the facts described. And the facts described are enough to prove that environment > genetics. |
|
|
|
Which relevant factor has been changed in favor of communism working now?
And which one of it avoids theft of private property?
Direct democracy which means you can have communism without an abusive government. Which means you can implemant communism without it falling into dictatorship. And I don't see why "theft of private property" would be a bad thing on its own. Only Americans still consider private property as a sacred divine right. Nothing has changed, Communism is still the same failed model as before. Pro tip, if you are going to try to critique someone's knowledge level, try not to look like a total moron doing it.
Oh my god nothing as changed since USSR? We haven't learned anything and science hasn't changed shit? Sorry then, I guess nothing as changed and conditions are exactly the same as before, it means there is no reason for communism to succeed. |
|
|
|
|
What can you say to people with so much bad faith?
You realize I was pointing at the failure to DISTRIBUTE ressources of capitalism right? Not at the overproduction.
But when you claim that homeless people deserve to be so, when you deny the thousands of studies showing that what you do in life is dependant on who your parents were and not what you do, when you're blind to the systemic contruction of poverty and inequalities, what can you understand about capitalism failure?
You see a ver strange world. I just hope you didn't have children that's all. Then you won't have to worry about the rock landing.
|
|
|
|
Is this the part where you claim everyone who ever starves is a direct result of Capitalism, as if Communism would have fed them as if by magic?
Well this is the part where I claim that capitalism is an extremely shitty ressource allocation system as it produces more than the needs of the population and still manages to get millions of people starving. But that's probably the part where you claim that communism wouldn't have allowed anything at all and everyone would have died because... Well you won't have to give a reason but you'll be still right. |
|
|
|
There is also a long historical record of Communism being harmful. I love how you dismiss the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy of "it's not real Communism", then immediately proceed to rephrase the same argument.
I'm very sorry you consider changing the condition the same as doing repetedly the same thing. Probably linked to your lack of scientifical knowledge. If every time it fails, you make an hypothesis on why it fails and you chenge it, there is no reason it will fail. |
|
|
|
Pinochet killing a 1000 communists is totally proving communism is a superior system.
Especially when these 3 regimes have such little death tolls
Mao Tse Tung - 40+ million
Stalin - 28 million
Pol Pot - 3 million
Just keep virtue signalling.
That's not virtue signaling, that's trying to have a bigger point of view than just "hey capitalistic countries are making more money" yeah thanks dumbass, communist countries don't even have money normally so yeah they're not going to produce the same things. Really wanna go with the death toll? You understand that capitalism lost this battle decades ago right? |
|
|
|
It is a perfect metaphor. Doing cocaine makes you feel great. Why don't people do cocaine all day every day then? Oh right, because that is not a viable long term strategy for living.
Yeah but we can prove that cocaine is harmful to the body. See the difference? Yet we have never seen a communist country that didn't eventually hit the pavement.
Stupid argument at the same level than the "it's not real communism" Because it failed before it can't succeed in the future? Guess you never heard of changing the conditions in a scientific study then. |
|
|
|
Wanna talk about how great Pinochet was?
I'm talking about the economy not about the style of rule. Oh then if you don't take into account anything else that $/capita then I guess the comparison is easy. Of course it tells a lot about your ability to conceive the world, but at least the comparison is easy. |
|
|
|
No, that's called not just blindly believing anything that calls itself a study. All that is is a collection of cherry picked metrics and massaged statistics leaving out lots of very relevant information. Furthermore it is from a snapshot in time just before massive failures in these modern forms of Socialism/Communism. It would be akin to throwing you off a building, taking a picture, and saying look its ok, see, he can fly. You are still going to eventually hit the pavement regardless of the fact of the picture of you in mid air.
Funny you use this metaphore a lot but the good thing is that it ends every possible argument. "oh no it's not working, it's just working temporaly before it fails" Yeah thanks dude, great argument really. |
|
|
|
Well, that is a very impressive 33 year old cherry picked study. You know its relevant when it is still referencing East Germany. Have any studies that are maybe created after the internet?
Well we both know you would never accept any fact that goes against your agenda right? I've never seen you accept anything unless it goes your way 100%. That's what you call fanatism. I can see the good sides of capitalism but you never accepted any pro of socialism or communism. That's what you call brainwashing dude  |
|
|
|
There is.
Let me name a couple
1. Hong Kong vs China
2. Taiwan vs China
3. South Korea vs North Korea
4. Venezuela vs Chile
5. East Germany vs West Germany
Same people, same culture, diametrically opposed outcomes.
Are you fucking kidding me? 1 and 2 both HK and Taiwan have been crushed by China. 3 and 5 was just a cold war zone and one of the two countries saw his camp disappear. 4 is a joke right? What do you want? To compare which dictatorship was worse? Wanna talk about how great Pinochet was? |
|
|
|
Mais c'est abusé de dire que la France n'est pas une démocratie. Ficher des individus parce qu'ils font des dons privés à un individu c'est clairement démocratique. Rien à voir avec un débordement autoritaire. Peut-être le jour où on les condamnera pour ça? Ou ça sera encore juste un "durcissement des institutions"? |
|
|
|
|
Ok, pas de discussion possible avec un fanatique.
En attendant je prends tous les paris que tu veux.
J'espère juste que tu te rendras compte que tu n'avances aucun argument, pas un. Tu te contentes d'évoquer la foi, la foi que tu as en la possible adoption massive, la foi que tu as de voir les acteurs financiers évoluer (pourquoi le feraient-ils?) vers plus de crypto (pourquoi choisiraient-ils cette voie?).
Tu as la foi. Tant mieux pour toi. En attendant la réglementation tant à mettre des batons dans les roues des crypto, l'adoption ne vient que trèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèèès timidement et aucun des acteurs puissants en place actuellement n'a le moindre intérêt à voir leur émergence.
Tu compares le passage fiat -> crypto au passage silver->papier en oubliant au passage que la transition silver->papier a été orchestrée de bout en bout par les gouvernements parce qu'ils en avaient besoin pour financer leurs guerres. Sans ça jamais la transition n'aurait été réalisée, ou en tout cas certainement pas aussi vite.
Alors comment la transition fiat->crypto pourrait se réaliser alors que les gouvernements n'ont rien à y gagner?
Ben mystère mais tu as la foi, c'est déjà ça.
|
|
|
|
Bin ... C'est comme avec beaucoup d'autres choses. Ca prend du temps. Comme pour l'email, le monde ne s'est pas mis à l'utiliser massivement du jour au lendemain car la technologie était disponible. Le potentiel est là avec Bitcoin, et ce qui est bien c'est que le réseau internet, qui a du être déployé pour que l'email perce, existe déjà. Donc ça n'en sera que plus rapide.  Tiens pour montrer à quel point tu as tord: https://mondedumail.com/histoire-email-dates-cles/20 ans avant la démocratisation massive du mail. 30 ans entre le premier mail créé et l'utilisation par 90% de la population. BTC ça fait 10 ans. Pour un truc qui ne sera "que plus rapide" c'est pas vraiment une fusée... Impossible de prédire l'avenir mais je suis prêt à prendre n'importe quel pari avec toi que dans 10 ans aucune société n'aura créé un portefeuille à BTC massivement distribué et que dans 20 ans il n'y aura toujours pas plus de 5% de la population utilisant BTC. On prend les paris? Je pari 1BTC sans souci ^^ |
|
|
|
|
Houlalala vous avez été bien trop prolyxes cette nuit les enfants.
Alors on va résumer le problème simplement et le pourquoi BTC ne sert à rien et ne servira jamais à rien:
1/Pour que BTC devienne utile il doit remplacer au moins assez largement les monnaies fiduciaires. Sinon c'est juste un service d'échange type Western Union avec moins de frais. Pas vraiment révolutionnaire hein...
2/Pour que les monnaies fiduciaires perdent en importance il faut que la majorité des gens abandonnent leur utilisation
3/Ca voudrait dire que les banques, les fonds d'investissements, les assurances, les gouvernements perdent quasiment tout et tout leur pouvoir.
Bon maintenant si vous arrivez à définir une situation où le point 3 est vérifié sans un effondrement de la société je veux bien voir un avenir prometteur au BTC ^^
@Yogg tu retranscris le débat entre "les innovateurs" qui voient plus loin que le bout de leur nez et "les arriérés" incapables d'envisager la nouveauté. Tu biaises complètement les choses dès le départ et je suis sûr que tu es au dessus d'une telle malhonnêteté intellectuelle.
Le problème n'est pas que je suis dans le siècle dernier incapable de voir le potentiel du BTC. Le problème est que ce potentiel ne peut se révéler que si tout le système monétaire s'effondre. Ce n'est pas quelque chose de souhaitable et si ça devait arriver, les incertitudes sont telles que rien ne garantisse la potentielle utilité du BTC.
@StarenseN oui BTC permet de faire des échanges entre deux personnes sans aucune restriction. Et non ce n'est pas révolutionnaire parce que 99% des gens ne veulent effectuer que des échanges très légaux, très anodins et pour lesquels ils se fichent bien d'être surveillés.
|
|
|
|
Yes, free markets don't really exist in the technology sector in the current state of capitalism. A few big players dominate the scene and we have companies like Facebook and Google that buy up all the other companies. People like to hate on socialism/communism for the centralization of power but capitalism does indeed have the same outcome in many ways.
Though it is of course far slower than massive immediate centralization of government of course. But the outcome will be the same. |
|
|
|
It wouldn't be a scalable test. Socialism/Capitalism only really works at small scale. Also Socialism/Communism require Capitalism to function, but not vice versa.
Scale argument is dumb as there is no reason for a system to work on a scale and not work on another one. Also you have the idea that communism requires capitalism which is false, it's just that capitalism was first so communism can only emerge from a capitalist country. It doesn't mean it needs it, it's just that it doesn't have any other choice. |
|
|
|
Another point of interest might be how health provision is changing in my country, the UK. We are gradually moving from an almost French system towards an American system as our fascination with privatisation takes a greater and greater hold. Services are suffering as money gets sucked out by private companies.
I won't deny that nationalised industries can suffer from inefficiency and bloat, but equally it is impossible to deny that once something is privatised, the whole purpose switches from quality of service provision to share price and shareholder dividends.
Funny thing is that... Same in France... We have the best and most efficient healthcare system in the worls, absolutely all studies and associations agree on that, but no we're going full speed towards privatization. Who gains from this? I'm sure you can guess. |
|
|
|
Si ça sert à rien, et que ça permet de vendre du rêve aux nouveaux arrivent et de ce faire de l'argent sur leur dos.
Qu'est-ce que vous foutez la ? Y'a pas une ZAD a défendre ? Des camarades à rejoindre pour abolir le patriarcat bourgeois ? Ne me dites pas que, vous aussi, votre seul interêt en étant ici est de vendre du rêve aux nouveaux arrivent et de ce faire de l'argent sur leur dos.
Ben si... Carrément même... J'ai acheté mon premier BTC il vallait 300$, dur de sortir d'une secte qui t'a rapporté autant xD Par contre ça n'empêche pas d'être lucide sur ce que c'est. Et si tu penses que le BTC a une utilité... Je t'en prie éclaire ma lanterne. Mais pour le moment son seul intérêt c'est d'être un actif sur lequel beaucoup de gens trade. Ca sert à rien mais plein de gens se l'échange. Une monnaie qui ne se transforme jamais en autre chose que des $ quoi. |
|
|
|
Je n'ai pas dit que c'était bien Je ne vote plus depuis longtemps, j'ai essayé car mes parents m'y ont forcer. Tu peux aussi prendre Macron, c'est pareil que l’élection européen. Pour moi il représente pas grand monde, beaucoup d'abstention, vote blanc et tout ceux qui ont bloqué le pen. Tu m'étonnes. Le mec se prend pour le nouveau sauveur de la France alors qu'à peine 8 millions de gens ont voté pour lui. C'est 17% de la population inscrite. Va mourir quoi, tu parles d'une démocratie xD |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
