Topic: Why don't we set up capitalist and socialist communes to test which is better? - page 2. (Read 612 times)

of course there is leeching in capitalism.

workers have to be educated, education costs work and time, schools teachers, even the upkeep of the pupils.

socialists state educate pupils.

capitalists then simply found a banking cartel and try to steal those.

usa policy during cold war was all about stealing educated labour from eastern europe.

they never where able to maintain their wealth level without stealing/leeching. from eastern countries.

did you ever saw uk paying to poland for their polish plumbers and nurses.

in communist countries that leeching was called "econoic sabotage"

etc

Lol, yeah ok... I just didn't get the detailed nuances of your arguments... it is certainly not the case that you made a half baked argument then forgot you made it 3 seconds later, pretended you didn't make it, and are now pretending you are just too deep for me to understand to cover up for your own self contradiction. Nah...  BTW the distinction is irrelevant anyway.

Xerxes is a king.
How can you compare a statist with capitalism?

Capitalism is voluntary interactions between individuals.
Xerxes ownes slaves and uses coercion on his subjects to go to war.
Xerxes is a literal commie - using centralized state power against the people.
There's nothing capitalist about him.

Please read the definition of nature vs nurture:

"The nature versus nurture debate involves whether human behavior is determined by the environment, either prenatal or during a person's life, or by a person's genes. "

It talks about individual behavior.

I talk about social and economical status.

In other terms, nature vs nurture is about how one acts, I'm talking about what one obtains after his actions.

Hence your whole critics is based on an argument I never made.

Please think about the difference between the two then come back.

First of all what is "fair" is totally subjective, but for the sake of argument lets pretend "fair" is defined by your metric. If we just keep pumping resources into the 3rd world and they are not providing at least enough resources to maintain what they use, all that is happening is we are subsidizing overpopulation. The potential human population is infinite. Eventually there will not be enough resources for anyone, and by your metric this is "fair". The Western world balances out these factors, but this is being subverted by funneling in populations from the 3rd world who don't have these checks and balances, which is subverting this balance and making less resources available for all as a whole.

"You clearly said Sociology results shouldn't be taken into account because of how unscientific the method is." No, I didn't say this. I said Sociology is the lowest ranking of scientific rigor, and thus is more fallible than all the other sciences. So all of the history of Sociology (more than 40 years BTW) agrees with you? Interesting theory. Too bad you can't produce any of these studies for examination.

There are an infinite number of potential explanations, but lets just start with one. How about a combination of nature and nurture being the cause? Happy now? You were in fact using a false choice fallacy.

OH NOES! DON'T REFUSE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ARGUMENT! I don't know how I would cope if you don't bother supporting your own argument! Is this supposed to motivate me some how, you refusing to make your own points?



This is you making the argument of a conclusion in the nature vs nurture debate, you are just to ignorant to realize what your own arguments consist of. Speaking of reading, you can't even read and understand your own words.

Amazing. This amount of stupidity or bad faith is incredible. So you're right if population increases when ressources are fairly distributed, and you're right if it doesn't. Easy to be right when you just don't give argument but a two way assertion right?
Are you that dumb? Don't you understand the difference between being less rigorous than maths and having irrelevant results because it's not scientific enough? You clearly said Sociology results shouldn't be taken into account because of how unscientific the method is. If you admit it IS scientific methodology then you must take its results into account then I agree with you and you'll have to answer to the last 40 years of sociology studies. I'm ok with that clearly.
Nope it's a logical fallacy if you can provide a thrid option. Otherwise it's not a fallacy but a descprition of a reality. Provide a third explanation or take this accusation back.
I won't provide any study before you admit sociology is a scientific methodology providing acceptable and reliable results otherwise there is no point in providing you with anything as you'll simply deny them.

Once you admit this I'll gladly give you a dozen of studies showing that your situation is far more linked to your living environment as a child thatn at your personal abilities.

Oh and by the way if you knew how to read (which I really start doubting) you would see that I NEVER talk about the Nature vs nurture debate which is an interesting opened debate. It is not my point, you simply use another logical fallacy to make me say shit and debunk it after. Yeah I agree Nature vs Nurture isn't settled. Never said it was. Not my point. Not what I said.

Again, your first point goes back to the question of scale. Even if some small homogeneous communities can operate Communism effectively does not prove it can be scaled to an international level. Western countries are below replacement level birthrates from natives. The populations are increasing because of uncontrolled illegal immigration, which is essentially proving my point.

All social sciences are the least scientific form of science because they are the least able to follow rigorous scientific method. This is not even a debate, it is well known even among social scientists. FFS, the man who was said to have invented Sociology as a science is the originator of the concept of the scientific hierarchy itself.

The premise you are presenting here is called a "false choice" logical fallacy. You proscribe two potential options, and exclude any other possibilities when many more options exist.

So far you haven't provided any of these studies for review anyway, so your point is moot. Again, the nature vs nurture debate is NO WHERE NEAR being concluded.

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 
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.
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.
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.

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.

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, but this specific debate of nature vs nurture you are pointing to is an ancient and never-ending debate no where near being concluded. 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.

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.

Both systems are capable of abuse. Only one of them is a failed model in its own right.

ever heard of capitalist countries that just seek to burn and abuse their population? thats the norm in milliania of human history, not the exception like currently

meet xerxes a persian capitalists, that was capitalism during 99% of human history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NV9DSykTbo

Ever heard of any socialist program in any capitalist country ever?

ever heard of the polish plumbers in uk?

capitalists have a systemic behavior of leeching of the work of others,

bitcoin also leeches, the electricity and the work of the teachers of a nation who educated the workforce.

regards

In capitalism everyone is being taken care of.
If you take a look around yourself, each town in the modern world has a soup kitchen where you can get free food, each town has a red cross where you can also get free food&supplies for your home, most towns have homeless shelters where the homeless can reside.

But do you know why most of the homeless don't go to homeless shelters?
Because they don't want to.

Once you meet a couple of homeless people (I did), and you try to help them out, you'll soon realize there's a reason why they are homeless.
Each single homeless guy I met is an alcoholic, drug addict or a gambler.
If you take a simple walk through the London streets, you'll realize every single homeless guy is holding a cigarette in his hand (a pack is 10 GPB) while 90% of Britons do not smoke.
How can he afford cigarettes if he can't afford food?

It is because begging for food results in more money than begging for cigarettes.
And begging is quite a lucrative business. Some estimates say you can earn a 100$/hour on busy locations.
.
I give a homeless guy a 20 kuna.
He goes into the shop and comes out with the most expensive glass beer.
Not the cheap 2L one, but the expensive 0.5L one.

Further away, I tried to buy them food.
I tell the guy, I won't give you money, but I'll buy you something to eat.
So, we go the bakery, 'I'm allergic to ___', oh okay, there's ____, ......pause...
'I'm not really hungry, bye'.

Whoever is hungry in this time in the western world can be fed at any given time by attending a soup kitchen or the red cross, even going to the church would most definitely result in the person being fed.

There is 0 people who can't acquire basic neccesities for life without them willingly doing so in the west.

The people who are called 'unlucky' are purposly being homeless as they wish not to do work when work is proposed to them, they wish not to reside in a shelter when giving the opportunity, and they wish not to save money but rather drink it.

You can claim the moon is made of whipped cream, that doesn't make it so. What a horrible system! It produces abundance! I think you are having some trouble with basic logic here. You have this utopian idea in your head that it is possible to provide for everyone. Technically, that is true, but we would all have to live under basically totalitarian rule and have others making all our decisions for us. That is the BEST CASE scenario, one which is quite unlikely considering the human population is potentially infinite. What is more likely though is we get the totalitarianism and even more people die. I have explained many times why Communism is a failed model, because it is totally inefficient, ignores human nature, and provides no incentive for people to create the capital we all rely on to survive because responsibility for survival is collectivized to the state.

I have purposely made them conservative in order to avoid the exaggeration card.
The point would be valid even if the death toll was 10% of what it is.
Unforunately, a 100 million died from Marxist ideas.



Yes.
Capitalism will produce food, while communism will not.

Money is just an instrument of exchange.

What represents the prosperity of the people is what they can afford in their regular lives, and capitalism provides them with fridges filled with food, with cars to get from point A to point B, with TVs, laptops, computers, internet, phones etc.

Communism, well, it fails at food already.

I don't remember when capitalism did
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor


So, your argument against capitalism is that it produces everything in such abundance it can even be thrown away?

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.

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?

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?