Turn on thread page Beta
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Oh now you go "it can be backed up easily" so it was baseless originally.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No. That is not what baseless means. It actually has some founding in fact, compared to "hurr durr everyone poor xd xd".
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No. That is not what baseless means. It actually has some founding in fact, compared to "hurr durr everyone poor xd xd".
    Really?
    This is making me laugh .
    His has some founding in fact and if your talking about a complete free market so does yours (however a complete free market does not exist )


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    No. That is not what baseless means. It actually has some founding in fact, compared to "hurr durr everyone poor xd xd".
    Plus anyway your only argument will be hurr durr , "it's not true socialism/communism".
    We should start doing the same!



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Really?
    This is making me laugh .
    His has some founding in fact and if your talking about a complete free market so does yours (however a complete free market does not exist )
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It clearly has no founding in fact since communists have never advocated anything other than the raising of exploited and oppressed peoples out of oppression and exploitation.
    Of course a complete free market does not exist because it would work horribly - the role of neoliberal deregulation in the 2008 crash demonstrated that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    It clearly has no founding in fact since communists have never advocated anything other than the raising of exploited and oppressed peoples out of oppression and exploitation.
    Of course a complete free market does not exist because it would work horribly - the role of neoliberal deregulation in the 2008 crash demonstrated that.
    Just like communism would never work.
    Yes you point out one crash .
    Which was partially due to hydraulic Keynesianism and the belief that infinite credit supply would lead to infinite GDP growth combined with deregulation advocated by Bill Clinton to allow the poor to get mortgages.
    The reason why true socialism doesn't exist is because no one wants and it's dying. Your dreaming if you think capitalism will get overthrown and I shall continue you to let you dream forever


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Plus anyway your only argument will be hurr durr , "it's not true socialism/communism".
    We should start doing the same!
    That's because if you actually care to read a book, you'd realise that your 'examples' of socialism and communism aren't socialism, nor are they in any way communism.

    socialism a guide for dumb****s.png
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    That's because if you actually care to read a book, you'd realise that your 'examples' of socialism and communism aren't socialism, nor are they in any way communism.

    socialism a guide for dumb****s.png
    I'm not going to debate this with because Connor already did so and outclassed you


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    And you need to stop making baseless statements and then call it 'banter' when called out about it.
    It's a thread on a ****ing student forums. No one here is submitting arguments for their student thesis. Communists take jokes so seriously, probably why they actually believe in Marx's joke of an ideology.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Just like communism would never work.
    Yes you point out one crash .
    Which was partially due to hydraulic Keynesianism and the belief that infinite credit supply would lead to infinite GDP growth combined with deregulation advocated by Bill Clinton to allow the poor to get mortgages.

    The reason why true socialism doesn't exist is because no one wants and it's dying. Your dreaming if you think capitalism will get overthrown and I shall continue you to let you dream forever
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I point out one crash because capitalism is a continuous cycle of crashes - if you had a roommate as unstable as capitalism, you would've moved out years ago or insisted he seek professional help. But you keep such an economic system and imagine it's your job to adapt.

    So you're blaming Keynesianism for the 2008 crash? You cannot justify the banking crisis as anything except banks overspending other peoples money and creating a crisis to ensure the government takes on all their debt and none of them have been punished for it.

    Socialism is dying? I guess you should tell that to the left-wing governments of the world, I'm sure they'd like to know that. The way we are developing we have only two options - socialism, or barbarism.

    I shall continue you to let you dream forever
    What a brilliant point, oh I think I've lost.

    Oh wait no, I just got distracted by a copy of Marx's Capital Volume 1. Never mind.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    I'm not going to debate this with because Connor already did so and outclassed you


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Seeing that you have an indefensible position and weak points, you refuse to continue, but claim that you were not defeated. "Outclassed" is not a word anyone here would use.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    That's because if you actually care to read a book, you'd realise that your 'examples' of socialism and communism aren't socialism, nor are they in any way communism.

    socialism a guide for dumb****s.png
    It's because the communist ideology is fundementally flawed. It requires pretty much the whole population to accept to give up everything they have for a greater cause. This never happens. So of course it requires big government to sort out all the people with 3 brain cells or more. Every single country that said they were a socialist regime were all attempts at being socialist. There were many different attempts. People attempted to do in various different ways. Yet all of these attempts failed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Also the entire concept of workers owning the means of production make no sense. Workers are the means of production. Workers own things which will help them produce. Workers can also offer to give things which help production to other workers in exchange for the capital raised by that worker minus a salary. This is known as hiring a worker. He owns that thing which helps production because he worked for it. Your boss is just as much a worker as you are. We all have tangible and intangible assets which we use, lend, sell, or exchange for in order to have more tangible and intangible assets. I would've thought this is common sense, but apparently not.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    It's because the communist ideology is fundementally flawed. It requires pretty much the whole population to accept to give up everything they have for a greater cause. This never happens. So of course it requires big government to sort out all the people with 3 brain cells or more. Every single country that said they were a socialist regime were all attempts at being socialist. There were many different attempts. People attempted to do in various different ways. Yet all of these attempts failed.
    Except it doesn't, it requires a handful of people to be deposed from their positions of power.

    Every single country that said they were a socialist regime were implementing their version of "Marxism-Leninism" - Stalinism - more and more diluted than the last, which isn't socialism: it is essentially a kleptocracy.

    That also might be true if your interpretation of 'failed' meant it didn't achieve socialism, because the majority took place in pre-industrial societies, exactly where Marx said they wouldn't. Several of these countries still do exist, Cuba is a good example of a decent country where a Stalinist regime has brought about a lot of social good.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    I point out one crash because capitalism is a continuous cycle of crashes - if you had a roommate as unstable as capitalism, you would've moved out years ago or insisted he seek professional help. But you keep such an economic system and imagine it's your job to adapt.

    So you're blaming Keynesianism for the 2008 crash? You cannot justify the banking crisis as anything except banks overspending other peoples money and creating a crisis to ensure the government takes on all their debt and none of them have been punished for it.

    Socialism is dying? I guess you should tell that to the left-wing governments of the world, I'm sure they'd like to know that. The way we are developing we have only two options - socialism, or barbarism.



    What a brilliant point, oh I think I've lost.

    Oh wait no, I just got distracted by a copy of Marx's Capital Volume 1. Never mind.
    Dodge all the points , lol. Didn't actually address one . I never said Keynesianism was the pure cause , it was a partial cause , the belief that infinite credit supply would lead to infinite GDP growth combined with Bill Clinton deregulated the banks to encourage them to lend to the poor
    As you say no government is truly socialist therefore it doesn't exist hence dead . Left wing doesn't equal socialist .unless of course you admit that it does then all my examples of failed socialism are valid. You've just contradicted your main point. Well done.
    .You say banks overspent other people's money , the problem with socialism is that you run out of others peoples money. you think capitalism will get other thrown ,you are dreaming.
    If you say left wing =socialism then our examples are valid. your argument is flawed either way

    Your arguments are flawed , your incoherent garbage doesn't stack up as you've contradicted yourself and refusing to address points.
    Keep dreaming des



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by fleky6910)
    Dodge all the points , lol. Didn't actually address one . I never said Keynesianism was the pure cause , it was a partial cause , the belief that infinite credit supply would lead to infinite GDP growth combined with Bill Clinton deregulated the banks to encourage them to lend to the poor
    As you say no government is truly socialist therefore it doesn't exist. Left wing doesn't equal socialist .unless of course you admit that it does then all my examples of failed socialism are valid. You've just contradicted your main point. Well done.
    .You say banks overspent other people's money , the problem with socialism is that you run out of others peoples money. you think capitalism will get other thrown ,you are dreaming.
    If you say left wing =socialism then our examples are valid. your argument is flawed either way

    Your arguments are flawed , your incoherent garbage doesn't stack up as you've contradicted yourself and refusing to address points.
    Keep dreaming des
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That is just incoherent babble. Having a socialist government enacting socialist policies does not mean that it is a socialist country.

    You claim the arguments I make are flawed but there is not one ounce of fact within this post you have made.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Except it doesn't, it requires a handful of people to be deposed from their positions of power.

    Every single country that said they were a socialist regime were implementing their version of "Marxism-Leninism" - Stalinism - more and more diluted than the last, which isn't socialism: it is essentially a kleptocracy.

    That also might be true if your interpretation of 'failed' meant it didn't achieve socialism, because the majority took place in pre-industrial societies, exactly where Marx said they wouldn't. Several of these countries still do exist, Cuba is a good example of a decent country where a Stalinist regime has brought about a lot of social good.
    Name maximum 5 (handful) people who when they are deposed, we will have a socialist state in the UK.

    Cuba isn't communist, by your own definition. It's just a left-wing government, which is highly statist (and only survives because of cuba having a small homogenous population). It literally is big government. It's surviving because it isn't pushing for full communism. The government own **** and are runnning it decently well for their own small homogenous population. (However still worse than it would run in a capitalistic society). According to all schools of socialism thought, it's long overdue for the Cuban government to give control of the factories to the people and disband itself. Why isn't it doing that?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Name maximum 5 (handful) people who when they are deposed, we will have a socialist state in the UK.
    You cannot have a single socialist state existing alongside capitalist states for obvious reasons, one because owners of corporations are international.

    Cuba isn't communist, by your own definition. It's just a left-wing government, which is highly statist (and only survives because of cuba having a small homogenous population). It literally is big government. It's surviving because it isn't pushing for full communism. The government own **** and are runnning it decently well for their own small homogenous population. (However still worse than it would run in a capitalistic society). According to all schools of socialism thought, it's long overdue for the Cuban government to give control of the factories to the people and disband itself. Why isn't it doing that?
    That ignores my previous point. I didn't say Cuba were socialist.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Name maximum 5 (handful) people who when they are deposed, we will have a socialist state in the UK.
    You cannot have a single socialist state existing alongside capitalist states for obvious reasons, one because owners of corporations are international.

    Cuba isn't communist, by your own definition. It's just a left-wing government, which is highly statist (and only survives because of cuba having a small homogenous population). It literally is big government. It's surviving because it isn't pushing for full communism. The government own **** and are runnning it decently well for their own small homogenous population. (However still worse than it would run in a capitalistic society). According to all schools of socialism thought, it's long overdue for the Cuban government to give control of the factories to the people and disband itself. Why isn't it doing that?
    That ignores my previous point. I didn't say Cuba were socialist.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Also the entire concept of workers owning the means of production make no sense. Workers are the means of production. Workers own things which will help them produce. Workers can also offer to give things which help production to other workers in exchange for the capital raised by that worker minus a salary. This is known as hiring a worker. He owns that thing which helps production because he worked for it. Your boss is just as much a worker as you are. We all have tangible and intangible assets which we use, lend, sell, or exchange for in order to have more tangible and intangible assets. I would've thought this is common sense, but apparently not.
    And this is a common misconception to those who are not well-versed in the subject. The means of production as a term is defined as are physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value.

    The idea that the original fortunes on which modern capital is founded were accumulated by “hard work” and “thrift” is an impudent myth. The first historical period of the accumulation of capital is sordid, thievish and bloody from beginning to end. It is the period of the primitive accumulation of capital. The rest of capital has been inherited or accumulated as a result of this event.

    That is a confused statement you have made. I'll transcribe from Shachtman:

    The capitalist says, “Give me a fair day’s work and I will give you a fair day’s pay.” The worker says, “For a fair day’s pay, you will get a fair day’s work.” It would seem that there has been a fair-and-square exchange between the two parties. But let us look a little further.

    If the employer has given the worker as much as the worker has given him, why did the employer need the worker in the first place? He had just as much before he hired the worker as he did at the end of the first working day – assuming he gave the worker, in the form of wages, the same value as the worker contributed to him, in the form of applied labor power.
    This would make no sense, however. The capitalist produces only if a profit can be made. When there is no profit, he does not keep his plant working but closes it down or disposes of it to someone else.

    During the first three or four or five hours of the working day, the worker adds enough value to equal the wages he receives. But he contracted to work a full day. He continues to create value during the balance of the day. This additional value is known as surplus-value. It goes, not to the worker who created it, but to the capitalist who hired the worker for the full day (or week, or month, as the case may be), and who pockets this surplus-value in the form of profit. It is only because the worker can create this surplus, and only because the employer can pocket it, that labor is hired and capitalism can produce. That is the secret, and there is no other.

    That is the basis for the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. The ownership of the means of production as the private property of capitalists makes it possible for them to exploit the workers, to squeeze out of them surplus-value and thereby profits.

    No matter how noble and spotless the methods by which a man may have gathered together a large sum of money in the first place, the moment it is converted into capital, it cannot be increased, and it cannot even be maintained at its original size, without the exploitation of labor. The idea that capital is the result of “hard work” by the capitalists, of their “savings” and “economizing,” of the “risks of enterprise” they take – or of anything else but the exploitation of labor and surplus-value – is utter nonsense.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    And this is a common misconception to those who are not well-versed in the subject. The means of production as a term is defined as are physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value.

    The idea that the original fortunes on which modern capital is founded were accumulated by “hard work” and “thrift” is an impudent myth. The first historical period of the accumulation of capital is sordid, thievish and bloody from beginning to end. It is the period of the primitive accumulation of capital. The rest of capital has been inherited or accumulated as a result of this event.

    That is a confused statement you have made. I'll transcribe from Shachtman:

    The capitalist says, “Give me a fair day’s work and I will give you a fair day’s pay.” The worker says, “For a fair day’s pay, you will get a fair day’s work.” It would seem that there has been a fair-and-square exchange between the two parties. But let us look a little further.

    If the employer has given the worker as much as the worker has given him, why did the employer need the worker in the first place? He had just as much before he hired the worker as he did at the end of the first working day – assuming he gave the worker, in the form of wages, the same value as the worker contributed to him, in the form of applied labor power.
    This would make no sense, however. The capitalist produces only if a profit can be made. When there is no profit, he does not keep his plant working but closes it down or disposes of it to someone else.

    During the first three or four or five hours of the working day, the worker adds enough value to equal the wages he receives. But he contracted to work a full day. He continues to create value during the balance of the day. This additional value is known as surplus-value. It goes, not to the worker who created it, but to the capitalist who hired the worker for the full day (or week, or month, as the case may be), and who pockets this surplus-value in the form of profit. It is only because the worker can create this surplus, and only because the employer can pocket it, that labor is hired and capitalism can produce. That is the secret, and there is no other.

    That is the basis for the exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class. The ownership of the means of production as the private property of capitalists makes it possible for them to exploit the workers, to squeeze out of them surplus-value and thereby profits.

    No matter how noble and spotless the methods by which a man may have gathered together a large sum of money in the first place, the moment it is converted into capital, it cannot be increased, and it cannot even be maintained at its original size, without the exploitation of labor. The idea that capital is the result of “hard work” by the capitalists, of their “savings” and “economizing,” of the “risks of enterprise” they take – or of anything else but the exploitation of labor and surplus-value – is utter nonsense.
    I could read all of that, but you're a state capitalist, so it doesn't matter.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 3, 2017
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.