Capitalism vs. Socialism - Make your argument here.

[mOgliE]

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

I'll leave this here even though anyone who believes in actual research already rejects capitalism.

In 28 of 30 comparisons between
countries at similar levels of economic development, socialist countries showed more favorable PQL (physical quality of life) outcomes.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.76.6.661

Where is this quote from?
It is not found anywhere on the link you provided.
Nor can I see anything like it there.

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.

Yet we have never seen a communist country that didn't eventually hit the pavement.

[TECSHARE]

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.

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.

[mOgliE]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

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.

[mOgliE]

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.

[iluvbitcoins]

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.

The difference is that 'almost communism' always results in starvation and dictatorship while 'almost capitalism' results in prosperity.

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.

Which relevant factor has been changed in favor of communism working now?

And which one of it avoids theft of private property?

[TECSHARE]

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.

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.

[mOgliE]

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.

[TECSHARE]

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.

"Direct Democracy" is just a rebranding of a pure Democracy, which is just a more palatable way of saying mob rule. Under mob rule individuals and minority groups have no rights, because the mob can always just vote their rights away. Democracy is by no means infallible, in fact it makes the populations much more easily controlled because getting people to operate as collective unthinking herds is a lot easier than gaming a Republic for example with protected individual rights and rule of law. You just declaring that it can be done is nothing more than your imagination. Your fantasies do not count as substantiation for your arguments. ALL RIGHTS are property rights. Without property rights you have no rights of ANY KIND.

Oh, I see, the world is different now, so Communism will work this time, promise! You are just making a long form rephrasing of "it wasn't true Communism", IE the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The world has changed, but Communism has not, and the basic elements that make Communism a failure have not changed in society either.

[mOgliE]

"Direct Democracy" is just a rebranding of a pure Democracy, which is just a more palatable way of saying mob rule. Under mob rule individuals and minority groups have no rights, because the mob can always just vote their rights away. Democracy is by no means infallible, in fact it makes the populations much more easily controlled because getting people to operate as collective unthinking herds is a lot easier than gaming a Republic for example with protected individual rights and rule of law. You just declaring that it can be done is nothing more than your imagination. Your fantasies do not count as substantiation for your arguments. ALL RIGHTS are property rights. Without property rights you have no rights of ANY KIND.

That's incredible. How can you be so blind?

Ok so we're going to try to use your brain a bit. What kind of social organization is NOT a mob rule?

Oh, I see, the world is different now, so Communism will work this time, promise! You are just making a long form rephrasing of "it wasn't true Communism", IE the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The world has changed, but Communism has not, and the basic elements that make Communism a failure have not changed in society either.

Yes it has, and a lot. You being so deep up your own ass doesn't change the fact that no one refers to Das Kapital as the Bible nowadays because people learned from past mistakes and have changed the idea of Communism. If you think it hasn't changed, you just show your ignorance.

[TECSHARE]

"Direct Democracy" is just a rebranding of a pure Democracy, which is just a more palatable way of saying mob rule. Under mob rule individuals and minority groups have no rights, because the mob can always just vote their rights away. Democracy is by no means infallible, in fact it makes the populations much more easily controlled because getting people to operate as collective unthinking herds is a lot easier than gaming a Republic for example with protected individual rights and rule of law. You just declaring that it can be done is nothing more than your imagination. Your fantasies do not count as substantiation for your arguments. ALL RIGHTS are property rights. Without property rights you have no rights of ANY KIND.

That's incredible. How can you be so blind?

Ok so we're going to try to use your brain a bit. What kind of social organization is NOT a mob rule?

Oh, I see, the world is different now, so Communism will work this time, promise! You are just making a long form rephrasing of "it wasn't true Communism", IE the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The world has changed, but Communism has not, and the basic elements that make Communism a failure have not changed in society either.

Yes it has, and a lot. You being so deep up your own ass doesn't change the fact that no one refers to Das Kapital as the Bible nowadays because people learned from past mistakes and have changed the idea of Communism. If you think it hasn't changed, you just show your ignorance.

Interesting retort. Call me blind and move on. Speaking of blind, you missed the part where I already answered your question, a Republic is not mob rule. You keep saying Communism has changed, but you can't define anything about it that is different. Every single argument you have made for Communism is one that has been used in past failed attempts.

[mOgliE]

a Republic is not mob rule.

That's the definition of a republic:
"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

That's not a mob rule? Supreme power held by the people and their elected representatives is not mob rule for you?

Can you define "mob rule" then please? Because clearly the "supreme power is held by the people" should be rather close to my definition of "mob rule".

You keep saying Communism has changed, but you can't define anything about it that is different.

Because you never asked.

Main differences of Communism and Neo-Communism:
-Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people
-Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be
-No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though
-No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell.
-No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it
-At least half of each company is possessed by the workers.

See how it's different? How it has evolved? How it has NOTHING to see with what Marx imagined? Because Marx was a genius but never could have foreseen internet, which allows so much more local management.

[TECSHARE]

a Republic is not mob rule.

That's the definition of a republic:
"a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."

That's not a mob rule? Supreme power held by the people and their elected representatives is not mob rule for you?

Can you define "mob rule" then please? Because clearly the "supreme power is held by the people" should be rather close to my definition of "mob rule".

You keep saying Communism has changed, but you can't define anything about it that is different.

Because you never asked.

Main differences of Communism and Neo-Communism:
-Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people
-Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be
-No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though
-No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell.
-No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it
-At least half of each company is possessed by the workers.

See how it's different? How it has evolved? How it has NOTHING to see with what Marx imagined? Because Marx was a genius but never could have foreseen internet, which allows so much more local management.

You conveniently left out several requisites for the definition of a republic to include only the part you believe makes your argument. That is like saying Usain Bolt isn't a world class runner because you only describe everything above his waist, and use his lack of legs as an argument. More specifically a Constitutional Republic is not mob rule.

Why do I need to ask? You are the one making the argument, either make it and substantiate it or don't. lets go over your supposed changes point by point.

1- "Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people"

This has been claimed before and failed. Furthermore the government consists of people, they are on in the same.


2- "Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be"

Yet the abolition of private property is one of the core tenets of Communism. Thank you for supporting my argument private property should not be abolished.



3- "No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though"

You are simultaneously describing 3 exclusive concepts. How do you even manage to wipe your ass with that kind of lack of logic?



4- "No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell"

Oh, so no investment huh? Well that will go over well. I am sure that won't have any negative consequences like, not allowing peopel to afford to buy homes or cars, or other basic necessities or anything.


5- "No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it"

That sure sounds a lot like fascism, as do some of your other points. So you are going to compel people to work for a company by force of law when they don't want to? That sounds a lot like slavery.


6- "At least half of each company is possessed by the workers"

Why would anyone invest in a crating a company (oh right I forgot investments are banned) if they immediately will have half of their investment taken from them? Also, tell me, how do the workers own half of a company if there are no shares? Your total lack of logic is astounding.


Your ideas are nothing but pure fantasy that collapse under even the most superficial examination.

[mOgliE]

You conveniently left out several requisites for the definition of a republic to include only the part you believe makes your argument. That is like saying Usain Bolt isn't a world class runner because you only describe everything above his waist, and use his lack of legs as an argument. More specifically a Constitutional Republic is not mob rule.

Very sorry I didn't use the same dictionnary than you. It's clearly manipulation from my side and not just you who should have given your complete definition and how it proves your point. If I have to complete your argument because you were too lazy don't accuse me of manipulation.
Please prove your assertion.

Why do I need to ask? You are the one making the argument, either make it and substantiate it or don't. lets go over your supposed changes point by point.

1- "Power is directly hold by the population, there is no strong government, only strong people"

This has been claimed before and failed. Furthermore the government consists of people, they are on in the same.

Sure direct democracy has already been put in place. Can you point out where?

2- "Private property is no longer abolished as it has not reason to be"

Yet the abolition of private property is one of the core tenets of Communism. Thank you for supporting my argument private property should not be abolished.

No absolutely not, abolition of private property of the means of production is core tenets of Communism, not abolition of all private property. You would know this if, as you said, you had really studied Marx.
You're welcome as I also believe private property should not be abolished. It seems we agree on something.

3- "No national monopoly but every vital sector (health, transport, energy...) must always have a governmental company providing the service. It can have private competition though"

You are simultaneously describing 3 exclusive concepts. How do you even manage to wipe your ass with that kind of lack of logic?

Very sorry your brain can't handle so much complexity. Don't hesitate if you need a drawing.

4- "No shares and trade shares. Any investment in a company is impossible to sell"

Oh, so no investment huh?

Exactly, no trade shares means no investment, because there can be no investment without trade share 

Well that will go over well. I am sure that won't have any negative consequences like, not allowing peopel to afford to buy homes or cars, or other basic necessities or anything.

Clearly it's the same to forbid share trade and the right to own a house. Not at all a biased stupid comparison here.

5- "No company can close without the State autorization, which has the right to nationalize it"

That sure sounds a lot like fascism, as do some of your other points. So you are going to compel people to work for a company by force of law when they don't want to? That sounds a lot like slavery.

Exactly because It's what I said. How did you manage to read "Company closing can be nationalized" as "people will have to work without wanting to"?

6- "At least half of each company is possessed by the workers"

Why would anyone invest in a crating a company (oh right I forgot investments are banned) if they immediately will have half of their investment taken from them? Also, tell me, how do the workers own half of a company if there are no shares? Your total lack of logic is astounding.


Your ideas are nothing but pure fantasy that collapse under even the most superficial examination.

Dude, you can't imagine a company without shares, what do you want me to explain you if you can't even imagine a company without external private investment funds while 99% of companies ARE ALREADY created without them??

[Mastrhiggins]

Is it safe to say that a hybrid system is required due to human nature?
I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.

You will always have go-getters, people who are lazy/un-motivated and then those in between.

Fat cats and starving dogs has been around for centuries.  I don't see that changing.

[mOgliE]

I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the very known social programs of USA xD

Well known for this yeah

[oneblagobl]

Socialism is scary

[Mastrhiggins]

I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the very known social programs of USA xD

Well known for this yeah

Sarcasm?

Welfare subsidies everywhere...

social security, medicare, medicaid, food assistance, public housing, flood zone subsidies, tax credits, student grants...list goes on.

[Mt. Gox]

I mean that is basically what the U.S. is now with all the social programs that exists.

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah the very known social programs of USA xD

Well known for this yeah

Sarcasm?

Welfare subsidies everywhere...

social security, medicare, medicaid, food assistance, public housing, flood zone subsidies, tax credits, student grants...list goes on.

That's social democracy (aka. Nordic capitalism), not socialism.

A strong welfare state might make life a bit more comfortable for the poor but it is still squarely within the framework of a free market capitalist society. There is nothing about removing the capitalist class or abolishing private property or nationalizing large swaths of the economy for example.

In recent years, it's been made more confusing by the fact that many democratic socialists (e.g. Bernie Sanders) and democratic socialist parties in Europe run on what are more accurately described as social democratic platforms. Democratic socialism and social democracy both arose from the same roots but while the former aims to implement socialism gradually over time through democratic reforms, the latter is essentially just capitalism with regulations and a big safety net.