Topic: Capitalism is destroying us. (Read 1398 times)

They are different because context matters.  The political setting at the time of an event matters.  You like to look at single events in isolation from any context.  You like to ignore starting points and oversimplify complex issues that have a lot of variables at play.  This is one of the reasons why your opinions are the way they are.

There have been socialist dictators (well yeah but socialism inherited nations that were already previously autocratic)
Socialists are thieves who want to print money (well yeah but we have already printed money for a long time)
People died in a famine (well yeah but the principals that led to mismanagement of food are principals we reject)

People should respect US sovereignty (well yeah but we have never respected anyone else's)
Capitalists work hard to get where they are (well yeah but they had significant opportunity)
No one is forced to work (well yeah but they have to work to earn a living)
Smart people start their own companies (well yeah but they need capital for that to be an option

Its the same fucking question, just rephrased to be more friendly to your delusions about Socialism.

That is the wrong question.  The question you should be asking is "How many countries switched from democracy to dictatorship through socialism?"

I'll help...

Tsarist autocracy--> Lenin
Cuban military junta--> Castro
Imperial Japanese occupation-->Kim il sung
Soviet occupation--> Ceaușescu

So not only is the authoritarianism separate from the socialism, it usually predates it. 

How many dictators came to power through Socialism/Communism?

NK is led by a dictator, so that argument does not hold.
Aside of that, I am sure that NK has less environmental impact than most capitalistic countries.

Or NK?

You do realize that there many forces at play when it comes to the case of Venezuela? And why don't you use the example of Cuba?
Let me tell you why: You just won't admit that Capitalism has failed this planet!

So what are you saying? You like working for free yourself , to buy food for other people?
Or do you expect that other people work for you so you can buy food with their money?

Be honest, almost each person is a capitalist.. and it is totally diffeferent than "corporatism" where people are put in poverty by design and intention.
Of course there are people who don't want or need money to be happy , but then they don't have a reason to be mad at those who have or want another kind of (extra) wealth.

I take the time to answer every statement you made point by point and I am not answering you? I think you mean you do not like that I am refuting your arguments. That was quite a bit of text for some one who was "not answering you".

I am not here to debate? What? First of all why do you get to tell me what I am here for? Second, isn't debate pretty much the entire purpose of this section so good ideas can be elevated in the marketplace of ideas?

Separated arguments? Basically what you are saying to me is, I didn't break down each individual response into an easily digestible nugget of text for you, therefore it is not logical? Are you sure that you aren't just triggered by seeing anything more than a paragraph full of text? You keep accusing me of not following logic and reason with no basis then exhibit none of these qualities yourself.

You have fun ignoring me, hopefully you will be kept safe from ideas that offend you. I am going to keep replying to your senseless arguments though, and keep deconstructing them using logic, critical thought, and empirical data. I look forward to not having to dance through your field of logically fallacious mental gymnastics as you find new and creative ways to appear as if you refuted my criticisms.

Sorry my bad I was a bit triggered by your new thread and tried to discuss again with you. It was a mistake as you're just either a lier either a complete moron. I've taken the time to put your arguments one by one with an explanation and you don't even have the courtesy of answering me. I don't see the point of going further and put you back on ignore that was my mistake for giving you another chance, won't do it again.

Please don't hesitate to think you've "won this debate" and let anyone see how irrelevant your answers were.

You're litteraly not answering me, you just vomit your nonsense over and over again. You make no effort whatsoever to stay focus or cohrent. You're not here to debate. I stop losing my time with you.

Unless you try to actually go forward by stopping writing as if you were alone but rather take the time to build your reasonning in formal and separated arguments contructed in a logical way (which means an hypothesis, a proof of that hypothesis, and a logical reasoning leading to a conclusion) I'll let you alone.

Proof I am lying? What? You said exactly what I quoted. The fact that you said self contradictory things within your own statement is only evidence of your own duplicity. It was a logical fallacy, or a red herring, because it was simply used as a way to escape having to reply to the rest of the more solid objective criticisms. Your self serving interpretation of my words is not proof of anything except you are desperate to feel like you had a win.

Uh, Capitalism is not a new invention, it is ancient. Lets start with a simple question, how old is money? Pretty fucking old. Furthermore even animals have demonstrated the ability to barter on a basic level, demonstrating there is a natural precedent for Capitalism.

People who work more and are more skilled are more likely to succeed compared to those who lack skills and work less hard. Not an empty statement at all, it is merely a very simple concept.

Regarding "my burden of proof" there, you would of course pitch the example of the absolutely least skilled workers in jobs intelligent people know are dead ends and claim it is an example of the failure of a system of the most highly skilled and hardest workers. Is it really a failure of the system or a failure of the worker to invest time and energy into raising their marketplace value?

Meritocracy is an extension of supply and demand. The most skilled workers get paid the most because they are the most in demand as a result of the profits they can enable to be captured. Furthermore the price signalling mechanism built into this basic economics concept allows the true value of this labor to be telegraphed openly and modified real time as the market conditions change.

Of course this is again just another distraction while you demand I prove every little statement I make over and over again while you bob and weave between the arguments you have no reply to, avoiding your own burden of proof.

My source for the nature vs nurture debate is just an example. This debate is literally first day material in any basic psychology course. This is by any definition not a settled debate, and your claims otherwise are fallacious.

Genetic abilities are NOT "distributed in a rather uniform way throughout humanity". This is another premise I know you will avoid proving. There is however plenty of evidence showing there are intelligence curves that peak at differing levels that are directly correlated by race, even after accounting for quality of life and other economic and societal factors.

This is irrelevant however because you are making this wild claim, and I KNOW for a fact you can't prove it. Since your refutation of my argument completely relies on your premise that genetics and environment have equal influence, the support for your premise fails. Also, you just made the argument environment is more important than genetics, not equal to it. Contradict yourself much? I guess it is just too painful to admit you were wrong on this point you need to slowly shift the goal posts to maintain the illusion of credibility.

So when I put what you say and the proof you're lying it's red herring? xD

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-review
... 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.
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.
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...

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?

Just posting this because it seems you have hard time understanding why I say you're a troll that doesn't even read others:

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. You 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.

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. "Social studies" have not "proven humans are more determined by their environment than by themselves." You are talking about a well known and ancient debate over the question of nature vs nurture. A debate that has been going on for thousands of years and still continues until this day in spite of your unilateral declaration of its conclusion.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201710/nature-versus-nurture-where-we-are-in-2017

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.

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?

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.

Stop there man, it's useless. The guy is just completely blind by his own life. He believes that anyone can do what he has done without understanding how lucky he was 

Those kind of people are the first to get angry saying "YoU arE loOkinG for eXCUses" when you talk about environmental factors or how most of your destiny isn't in your own hand. For them: successful = smart and capable. unsuccessful = you haven't been smart enough.

They don't give a damn about the thousands of studies that have proven how you're far more determined by your environment (which you have no control on) than by your own abilities.

So for them we're just stupid assholes trying to limit their freedom by trying to impose an unfair equality of outcomes because there is already an equality of opportunity.

I stop it here. This is getting useless.

af_newbie with all due respect you're so far up your own example that there is no point in any kind of dicussion  

You're exactly the "self-made man" example who just can't understand why people aren't succeeding. If you succeeded and others aren't then it must be because you DESERVE it in some way right? After all that's a meritocracy and if other aren't successful it's because they're not smart enough/skilled enough/working enough right?

Well no. Not at all. It's because you're smart, you worked hard, and you got LUCKY.

Successfull people tend to forget how tremendeously important luck was in their success.

I'm for a very poor family and I'm a young engineer in one of the most important company in my country. My first wage was twice more than the wages of each of my parents and twice more than the combined wages of my grand parents who were just manufactory workers. I never lived in the street only because there are laws in my country that make it very difficult to expell people so even though my parents couldn't pay the rent for a few months we got some time to recover.

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.

Capitalism manage to make people believe their success is self made, hence the failures must be.

This is just false. Social studies have long proved that humans are more determined by their environment than by themselves. Believing you're mainly responsible for your success is a lie you tell yourself. You're not.

Nowadays, human beings face many difficulties and are very serious. It cannot be said simply that it is caused by capitalism. At least capitalism makes you no longer feel famine. For the future, only technology and great ideas can save humanity, otherwise I can't imagine humans in the next 200 years.