Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The next big collapse

bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2016 3:25:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
When does everyone think the next big collapse will be? As someone who plays the market here and there I dont think this inflated success can keep up for too much longer. Iv been waiting for a crash so certain stocks can "go on sale" so to speak. I have a feeling maybe sometime next year myself.
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 5:43:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/18/2016 3:25:47 PM, bigotry wrote:
When does everyone think the next big collapse will be? As someone who plays the market here and there I dont think this inflated success can keep up for too much longer. Iv been waiting for a crash so certain stocks can "go on sale" so to speak. I have a feeling maybe sometime next year myself.

I have a feeling that the next big collapse will be the fall of capitalism
gametheorist
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 9:24:53 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
If there is going to be another collapse in the near future, I see it happening through either (1) student loans, or (2) automotive loans. I've seen multiple articles floating around the web claiming that both markets bear resemblances to the state of 2004-2007 mortgage loans.

Worse and worse credit ratings have been accepted for loans in both markets, while (unsurprisingly) more people in both markets have sought to refinance those loans because they can't make their payments on them. This comes at the same time as the number of loans taken out in both markets have increased exponentially.

This is especially relevant in the present day with regard to car loans. As someone who briefly worked as an automotive industry writer, I can tell you that more and more people are seeking to get cars. This is largely due to increasing standards of living as employment has recently increased, creating a greater demand for consumer goods throughout the spectrum.

The Federal Reserve's quantitative easing, I believe, is responsible for this, and shows that it is likely superficial and cannot last in the long-term. This can also be seen in the stock market, specifically the S&P 500 and the ridiculously high Price-Earnings ratios in just about every sector.

I believe - and I may be wrong - that too many people are taking risks on an optimistic future for their future career gains and the U.S. economy in general, thus taking on and putting off loans until things hopefully, eventually get better. With the student loan market feeding off of this optimism, and the automotive loan market a result of said optimism, in my mind I see bleak futures for both, if that optimism does not match reality in the near future.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2016 11:21:37 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/10/2016 5:43:26 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
At 8/18/2016 3:25:47 PM, bigotry wrote:
When does everyone think the next big collapse will be? As someone who plays the market here and there I dont think this inflated success can keep up for too much longer. Iv been waiting for a crash so certain stocks can "go on sale" so to speak. I have a feeling maybe sometime next year myself.

I have a feeling that the next big collapse will be the fall of capitalism

You mean Social Democracies that have created Banana Republics out of all European nations that they've touched?
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 9:30:31 AM
Posted: 2 months ago

You mean Social Democracies that have created Banana Republics out of all European nations that they've touched?

Neoliberalism a la Friedman, are very different to the social democracies described by Keynes
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 3:43:12 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 9:30:31 AM, ThePostMarxist wrote:

You mean Social Democracies that have created Banana Republics out of all European nations that they've touched?

Neoliberalism a la Friedman, are very different to the social democracies described by Keynes

Thank you for realizing that, but that still doesn't answer anything that I have said.

The Social Democracies of Western Europe are failing Republics that have recycled their financial system for the past couple of decades. Income mobility is low, entrepreneurship is receding, the state is expanding its influence in monetary and fiscal matters, etc.

Neoliberalism is what should be in effect in Western Europe, but unfortunately, it's chalked full with Social Democracies, which are synonymous with Banana Republics.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:01:23 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
The Social Democracies of Western Europe are failing Republics that have recycled their financial system for the past couple of decades.

Scandinavian countries are very prosperous and social democracies

Neoliberalism is what should be in effect in Western Europe, but unfortunately, it's chalked full with Social Democracies, which are synonymous with Banana Republics.


Neoliberalism is what Pinochet enacted, and you may remember that... well... that didn't go very well did it? Bottomline: I am very skeptical of any economic system advocated by a man (Friedman) who advised a murderous dictator
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:44:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 4:01:23 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
The Social Democracies of Western Europe are failing Republics that have recycled their financial system for the past couple of decades.

Scandinavian countries are very prosperous and social democracies

You are unaware of the economic background of Scandinavian countries. They had systems in which they were able to facilitate the creation of wealth, which is why Sweden was the 3rd richest country in the world decades ago, and their switch to higher taxes paired with entitlement programs has stopped their creation of wealth.

They lack the means to continue fiscal expansionary policy and thus ramp up their failing financial sector with monetary stimulus so as to create short term gain. This is called quantitative easing and it's the most fiscally irresponsible action any government can undertake, outside of wars and high spending. Of course, the people in these countries don't seem to care, because most of them find that their short term "boon" is somehow going to lead to a long term boon as well, but that's the opposite of the truth. They are all failing Banana Republics, and the fact that they have such a high cost of living as a result of their depravity of a tax system is no surprise either.


Neoliberalism is what should be in effect in Western Europe, but unfortunately, it's chalked full with Social Democracies, which are synonymous with Banana Republics.


Neoliberalism is what Pinochet enacted, and you may remember that... well... that didn't go very well did it? Bottomline: I am very skeptical of any economic system advocated by a man (Friedman) who advised a murderous dictator

And yet you like an economic system that was undertaken by various murderous dictators?

Also, don't forget that Chile was the 3rd richest Latin American country under Pinochet. This simple "didn't go well" reasoning is the most inconspicuous and vague rationale you could use for backing up such an irresponsible system.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:53:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
...you like an economic system that was undertaken by various murderous dictators?

Name any murderous libertarian Marxist/anarchist socialist dictatorships.

Please...

Go ahead...

Also, don't forget that Chile was the 3rd richest Latin American country under Pinochet. This simple "didn't go well" reasoning is the most inconspicuous and vague rationale you could use for backing up such an irresponsible system.

I am not too familiar with the politics of Latin America, but sacrificing the rights of the people and the security of freedom speech and installing a dictatorship, to further a successful economy doesn't strike me as very... human
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 4:59:44 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 4:53:07 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
...you like an economic system that was undertaken by various murderous dictators?

Name any murderous libertarian Marxist/anarchist socialist dictatorships.

Please...

Go ahead...

Ah yes, this is the standard " communism has never been practiced" argument. Since your kind are known for constant deflection and No True Scotsman fallacies, I will simply refer to collectivist states with large government power over the fiscal and monetary system, as well as various other factors that I don't need to name. Che Guevera, who happens to be an individual that is revered by large swathes of Socialists, Marxists, and even Democrats created a system in which the people were exploited in rates far more severe than "wage slavery". In fact, I'm more than sure that those Cubans would have preferred total wage slavery than their current dictatorship.

On top of that, Mao's China, USSR, DPRK, Laos, etc. all come to mind when looking at the application of Marxism, not the theoretical nonsense that all of you economic illiterates claim on a day to day basis.


Also, don't forget that Chile was the 3rd richest Latin American country under Pinochet. This simple "didn't go well" reasoning is the most inconspicuous and vague rationale you could use for backing up such an irresponsible system.

I am not too familiar with the politics of Latin America, but sacrificing the rights of the people and the security of freedom speech and installing a dictatorship, to further a successful economy doesn't strike me as very... human

Once again, you are deflecting. Leave the petty emotional nonsense aside, and focus on the topic. I am not talking nor do I care about the "humanity" of what Pinochet did. It's inexcusable to state that he wasn't a dictator, but it's factually incorrect to state that he didn't help the economic well being of his people in some form. The "neoliberal" policies he enacted made the Chilean economy boom, while the Socialist policies of Brazil have brought it short of disaster.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:13:45 PM
Posted: 2 months ago

Ah yes, this is the standard " communism has never been practiced" argument. Since your kind are known for constant deflection and No True Scotsman fallacies

There are deflections. None of your examples of communism are actually communist, because you're, to put it kindly, a silly willy

I will simply refer to collectivist states with large government power over the fiscal and monetary system, as well as various other factors that I don't need to name

You do need to name them. This is a debate. None of your examples so far have fitted the parameters of libertarian Marxism, or even communism, simply you site the same tired examples of Marxist-Leninist/State Capitalist

In fact, I'm more than sure that those Cubans would have preferred total wage slavery than their current dictatorship.
Most people in Cuba love Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara was a great and innovative revolutionary who liberated the people and improved quality of life in Cuba for the ordinary person

On top of that, Mao's China, USSR, DPRK, Laos, etc. all come to mind when looking at the application of Marxism, not the theoretical nonsense that all of you economic illiterates claim on a day to day basis.
They're not Marxist, nor are they remotely communist. Communism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. Notice how in all of your examples the people do not own the means of production, the state does

Once again, you are deflecting. Leave the petty emotional nonsense aside, and focus on the topic. I am not talking nor do I care about the "humanity" of what Pinochet did. It's inexcusable to state that he wasn't a dictator, but it's factually incorrect to state that he didn't help the economic well being of his people in some form. The "neoliberal" policies he enacted made the Chilean economy boom, while the Socialist policies of Brazil have brought it short of disaster.

Again, this 'deflection' bollocks. You just can't take that your claims of what is and isn't socialism have all been rebutted

It's not 'deflection' when it is fact, and it isn't a No True Scotsman when the person you are criticising genuinely isn't part of your group. This is the problem with you neoliberals is you can't argue with socialists so you just say that we deflect and argue with fallacies when our points are based on sound logic

Also, none of your examples are libertarian Marxism, which is my ideology and the economic system I advocate. So... you've utterly failed really
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:15:07 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Once again, you are deflecting. Leave the petty emotional nonsense aside, and focus on the topic

An economy does have to keep the people happy. You understand that 'emotional nonsense' should be factored into the efficiency of an economy
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:29:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 5:13:45 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:

Ah yes, this is the standard " communism has never been practiced" argument. Since your kind are known for constant deflection and No True Scotsman fallacies

There are deflections. None of your examples of communism are actually communist, because you're, to put it kindly, a silly willy

So, nations with no property rights, collective ownership, deletion of fiscal hierarchy, etc. are not Communist? To put it kindly, you've went from an economic illiterate to a historical illiterate.


I will simply refer to collectivist states with large government power over the fiscal and monetary system, as well as various other factors that I don't need to name

You do need to name them. This is a debate. None of your examples so far have fitted the parameters of libertarian Marxism, or even communism, simply you site the same tired examples of Marxist-Leninist/State Capitalist

Please do not use the term Libertarian to refer to Marxism. Libertarianism is a right wing free market ideology, and simply putting the term Libertarian next to Marxism doesn't defer from the fact that Marxism is an anarchist ideal, not a governmental ideal. You do not need to use the term Libertarian in this case, nor would you be correct in using it, as Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Marxism.

Let me define State Capitalism for you -a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.

This is the exact definition of Socialism, just so you're aware. State Capitalism is a term coined by idiotic leftists to try and deter arguments away from their worthless collectivist ideologies, so they refer to the mass idiocy of state actions as "state capitalism", which is in turn Socialism.


In fact, I'm more than sure that those Cubans would have preferred total wage slavery than their current dictatorship.
Most people in Cuba love Fidel Castro, and Che Guevara was a great and innovative revolutionary who liberated the people and improved quality of life in Cuba for the ordinary person

Yes, he liberated people by denying them basic rights, and now Cuba is one of the worst nations to live in when looking at Latin America.


On top of that, Mao's China, USSR, DPRK, Laos, etc. all come to mind when looking at the application of Marxism, not the theoretical nonsense that all of you economic illiterates claim on a day to day basis.
They're not Marxist, nor are they remotely communist. Communism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. Notice how in all of your examples the people do not own the means of production, the state does

Communism is when the means of production are PUBLICLY owned, not owned by the people. Public ownership is state ownership, and the state is a culmination of the desires of the people, thus it's quite literally a perfect definition for Communism. The reason why you state this is to deflect, which also has an undesirable consequence, as it shows that Communism, since it's been tried so many times, is an unattainable goal.



Once again, you are deflecting. Leave the petty emotional nonsense aside, and focus on the topic. I am not talking nor do I care about the "humanity" of what Pinochet did. It's inexcusable to state that he wasn't a dictator, but it's factually incorrect to state that he didn't help the economic well being of his people in some form. The "neoliberal" policies he enacted made the Chilean economy boom, while the Socialist policies of Brazil have brought it short of disaster.

Again, this 'deflection' bollocks. You just can't take that your claims of what is and isn't socialism have all been rebutted

You haven't rebutted a single one of my claims. Instead, you've restated every fact that I have presented to you and deflected, as you do now, the accepted definitions of Communist nations. Revisionism is nonsensical and a lie.


It's not 'deflection' when it is fact, and it isn't a No True Scotsman when the person you are criticising genuinely isn't part of your group. This is the problem with you neoliberals is you can't argue with socialists so you just say that we deflect and argue with fallacies when our points are based on sound logic

Also, none of your examples are libertarian Marxism, which is my ideology and the economic system I advocate. So... you've utterly failed really

You must have lost your brain, as it seems. I couldn't care less for your made up ideology, so much as I care about railing against Communism and collectivist ideals, which need to be shown as the moronic and idiotic irresponsible and depraved systems that they are.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:31:40 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 5:15:07 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
Once again, you are deflecting. Leave the petty emotional nonsense aside, and focus on the topic

An economy does have to keep the people happy. You understand that 'emotional nonsense' should be factored into the efficiency of an economy

This was a terrible response. Happiness is a subjective phenomena and one that is not quantifiable by general synthesis, so using the "happiness" argument is inane and completely and utterly unsubstantiated. In fact, if you were to use some means of measuring happiness, then I'm more than sure that nations with private ownership of capital, or at least, more private ownership than public ownership would heavily out-scale the nations with large amounts of public ownership.

I am still waiting for your response to the myriad of arguments that I presented to you. I wonder just how nefarious your deflection will be this time.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ThePostMarxist
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:42:14 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
There are deflections. None of your examples of communism are actually communist, because you're, to put it kindly, a silly willy

So, nations with no property rights, collective ownership, deletion of fiscal hierarchy, etc. are not Communist? To put it kindly, you've went from an economic illiterate to a historical illiterate.

They are not communist because there is no common ownership of the means of production by the working class. They have always been owned by the state in countries typically called... 'communist'

None of your examples so far have fitted the parameters of libertarian Marxism, or even communism, simply you site the same tired examples of Marxist-Leninist/State Capitalist

Please do not use the term Libertarian to refer to Marxism. Libertarianism is a right wing free market ideology,

Wrong. The word libertarianism originates from the left anarchist movements of the 19th century. It has always meant left anarchism, never right-wing neo-feudalism

simply putting the term Libertarian next to Marxism doesn't defer from the fact that Marxism is an anarchist ideal, not a governmental ideal.

Marxism is anti-authoritarian and highly critical of all government

You do not need to use the term Libertarian in this case, nor would you be correct in using it, as Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Marxism.

Libertarianism (in regards to my earlier point that the word libertarianism means left anarchism) has always been left-wing anti-statism and this includes Marxism, which is inherently anti-authoritarian

Let me define State Capitalism for you -a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.

This is the exact definition of Socialism, just so you're aware.

Wrong again. That is the exact definition of state capitalism. Socialism is not when the state controls the means of production, it is when the worker's have common ownership of the means of production

Yes, he liberated people by denying them basic rights, and now Cuba is one of the worst nations to live in when looking at Latin America.

I see that I was wrong about Cuba after further research. I will give you this victory in the debate as you were correct

On top of that, Mao's China, USSR, DPRK, Laos, etc. all come to mind when looking at the application of Marxism, not the theoretical nonsense that all of you economic illiterates claim on a day to day basis.
They're not Marxist, nor are they remotely communist. Communism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. Notice how in all of your examples the people do not own the means of production, the state does

Communism is when the means of production are PUBLICLY owned, not owned by the people. Public ownership is state ownership, and the state is a culmination of the desires of the people, thus it's quite literally a perfect definition for Communism. The reason why you state this is to deflect, which also has an undesirable consequence, as it shows that Communism, since it's been tried so many times, is an unattainable goal.

Nope. Communism is when there is no state. Communism is essential people's control over the means of production and assembly democracy rather than a government and a state


Once again, you are deflecting. Leave the petty emotional nonsense aside, and focus on the topic. I am not talking nor do I care about the "humanity" of what Pinochet did. It's inexcusable to state that he wasn't a dictator, but it's factually incorrect to state that he didn't help the economic well being of his people in some form. The "neoliberal" policies he enacted made the Chilean economy boom, while the Socialist policies of Brazil have brought it short of disaster.

Again, this 'deflection' bollocks. You just can't take that your claims of what is and isn't socialism have all been rebutted

You haven't rebutted a single one of my claims. Instead, you've restated every fact that I have presented to you and deflected, as you do now, the accepted definitions of Communist nations. Revisionism is nonsensical and a lie.

I have. Every example you've given of socialism, isn't consistent, nor true socialism

It's not 'deflection' when it is fact, and it isn't a No True Scotsman when the person you are criticising genuinely isn't part of your group. This is the problem with you neoliberals is you can't argue with socialists so you just say that we deflect and argue with fallacies when our points are based on sound logic

Also, none of your examples are libertarian Marxism, which is my ideology and the economic system I advocate. So... you've utterly failed really

I couldn't care less for your made up ideology,

You mean an ideology supported by most anarchists? Most anarchists are libertarian socialists, and most libertarian socialists are libertarian Marxism. It's not 'made up', it is followed by thousands
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/11/2016 5:59:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago

They are not communist because there is no common ownership of the means of production by the working class. They have always been owned by the state in countries typically called... 'communist'

You fail to understand the various other facets of Communism and Marxian theory that have been incorporated into the foundations for these nations, especially the USSR. The very fact that the NEP had to be enacted as the country couldn't start industrializing without Capitalist investment highlights just how idiotic the ideology is.


None of your examples so far have fitted the parameters of libertarian Marxism, or even communism, simply you site the same tired examples of Marxist-Leninist/State Capitalist

Please do not use the term Libertarian to refer to Marxism. Libertarianism is a right wing free market ideology,

Wrong. The word libertarianism originates from the left anarchist movements of the 19th century. It has always meant left anarchism, never right-wing neo-feudalism

I am using it in the American context, not the European one. That was our misunderstanding, as it seems. Nonetheless, Marxism is already an anarchist theory, so there's no need to add Libertarian to it.


simply putting the term Libertarian next to Marxism doesn't defer from the fact that Marxism is an anarchist ideal, not a governmental ideal.

Marxism is anti-authoritarian and highly critical of all government

So that's why people who praise it and try to get it enacted often times result in authoritarian governments that restrict freedom of the individual? Sure, I'll definitely believe that jargon.


You do not need to use the term Libertarian in this case, nor would you be correct in using it, as Libertarianism is the exact opposite of Marxism.

Libertarianism (in regards to my earlier point that the word libertarianism means left anarchism) has always been left-wing anti-statism and this includes Marxism, which is inherently anti-authoritarian

A state is required to collectivize property, and some form of violence is required to redistribute, regardless of who is doing it. By being for redistribution, you are for violence.


Let me define State Capitalism for you -a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.

This is the exact definition of Socialism, just so you're aware.

Wrong again. That is the exact definition of state capitalism. Socialism is not when the state controls the means of production, it is when the worker's have common ownership of the means of production

"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." Please explain to me what the difference between State Capitalism and Socialism is, without trying to be dishonest and weasel your way out of the explanation which is rightly owed.


Yes, he liberated people by denying them basic rights, and now Cuba is one of the worst nations to live in when looking at Latin America.

I see that I was wrong about Cuba after further research. I will give you this victory in the debate as you were correct

On top of that, Mao's China, USSR, DPRK, Laos, etc. all come to mind when looking at the application of Marxism, not the theoretical nonsense that all of you economic illiterates claim on a day to day basis.
They're not Marxist, nor are they remotely communist. Communism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. Notice how in all of your examples the people do not own the means of production, the state does

If the means of production are owned by the workers in Communism, and if the means of production are owned by the workers in Socialism, and they both argue for the same thing and end result, then what is the difference between the two, and why exactly, do you continue to deflect the point? If the government takes property from citizens and if the majority of capital is directed and used by the state/public rather than the private individual, then that is automatically an anti-Capitalist position. Simply having a state that acquires capital and then uses its power to earn more does not make it a Capitalist economy. You need to look further into the inner workings of fiscal and monetary systems.


Communism is when the means of production are PUBLICLY owned, not owned by the people. Public ownership is state ownership, and the state is a culmination of the desires of the people, thus it's quite literally a perfect definition for Communism. The reason why you state this is to deflect, which also has an undesirable consequence, as it shows that Communism, since it's been tried so many times, is an unattainable goal.

Nope. Communism is when there is no state. Communism is essential people's control over the means of production and assembly democracy rather than a government and a state

You are using the theoretical definition, and that is one that I do not care about. All applications of Communist theory, which I hope you don't deflect, have led to the creation of a state. The simple fact is that people do not want to willingly give up their property, and the only way to redistribute any form of property, or to equalize the playing ground, is to use some form of sanctioned violence against your fellow individual. Any and all systems that refuse to accept this basic social fact and assumes that all individuals will happily give up their incentives is a system that is doomed to fail.



Once again, you are deflecting. Leave the petty emotional nonsense aside, and focus on the topic. I am not talking nor do I care about the "humanity" of what Pinochet did. It's inexcusable to state that he wasn't a dictator, but it's factually incorrect to state that he didn't help the economic well being of his people in some form. The "neoliberal" policies he enacted made the Chilean economy boom, while the Socialist policies of Brazil have brought it short of disaster.

Again, this 'deflection' bollocks. You just can't take that your claims of what is and isn't socialism have all been rebutted

You haven't rebutted a single one of my claims. Instead, you've restated every fact that I have presented to you and deflected, as you do now, the accepted definitions of Communist nations. Revisionism is nonsensical and a lie.

I have. Every example you've given of socialism, isn't consistent, nor true socialism

You are wrong in that regard to the highest extent.


It's not 'deflection' when it is fact, and it isn't a No True Scotsman when the person you are criticising genuinely isn't part of your group. This is the problem with you neoliberals is you can't argue with socialists so you just say that we deflect and argue with fallacies when our points are based on sound logic

Also, none of your examples are libertarian Marxism, which is my ideology and the economic system I advocate. So... you've utterly failed really

I couldn't care less for your made up ideology,

You mean an ideology supported by most anarchists? Most anarchists are libertarian socialists, and most libertarian socialists are libertarian Marxism. It's not 'made up', it is followed by thousands

Yes, creationism is followed by millions, and yet that doesn't give it any more respect and credibility than it would if it was followed by a single person. Marxism is a child's idea and one that either ends in the creation of a large industrious state power or fails and collapses the economy.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
TimGabz
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 8:22:34 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/11/2016 4:53:07 PM, ThePostMarxist wrote:
...you like an economic system that was undertaken by various murderous dictators?

Name any murderous libertarian Marxist/anarchist socialist dictatorships.

Please...

Go ahead...

Also, don't forget that Chile was the 3rd richest Latin American country under Pinochet. This simple "didn't go well" reasoning is the most inconspicuous and vague rationale you could use for backing up such an irresponsible system.

I am not too familiar with the politics of Latin America, but sacrificing the rights of the people and the security of freedom speech and installing a dictatorship, to further a successful economy doesn't strike me as very... human

Zimbabwe kinda qualifies. The problem with communism and socialism is that they run out of other people's money to spend.

American capitalism is failing from a) greed, b) social interference in the market. The USA has survived despite this mucking around.
Babazonke
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2016 3:50:56 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
@ PostMarxist

You strike me as kind of a funny guy. Now, I'm an unrepentant anarchist-communist sympathizer at heart. I had an extended romance with some of the existentialist/continental/critical theory stuff (and one of my favorite philosophers, Giorgio Agamben, actually follows in the historical materialist tradition of Benjamin, and I think has done a great service to the theoretic serviceability of communism in the contemporary world), but I also think capitalism is pretty practically awesome, for all of its acknowledged imperfections (your view on which I think is admittedly pretty superficial).

I've heard rumors the debate module is having some trouble, but I would be happy to debate you in some format on their relative practical merits (I'm not really a big fan of "in an ideal world, we'd do X" arguments, but I think there's a persuasive case for capitalist incrementalism over communist/socialist revolution in terms of actually enhancing expected quality of life).
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,320
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2016 12:53:08 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/18/2016 3:25:47 PM, bigotry wrote:
When does everyone think the next big collapse will be? As someone who plays the market here and there I dont think this inflated success can keep up for too much longer. Iv been waiting for a crash so certain stocks can "go on sale" so to speak. I have a feeling maybe sometime next year myself.

There's the biggest chance of it happening within the next year that there has been since 08. I'm not convinced it will happen unless Clinton is elected, in which case the US economy will degenerate far beyond what is already has (or even, perhaps, did in 08).
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Raisor
Posts: 4,461
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2016 3:49:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 8/18/2016 3:25:47 PM, bigotry wrote:
When does everyone think the next big collapse will be? As someone who plays the market here and there I dont think this inflated success can keep up for too much longer. Iv been waiting for a crash so certain stocks can "go on sale" so to speak. I have a feeling maybe sometime next year myself.

Timing the market is a fools game. You'd be kicking yourself in the butt if you waited for stock to "go on sale" in the mid-90's and missed out on the huge growth through 2001. I hope your market playing money is a small part of your portfolio.