Video: Debunking Every Anti-Communist Argument Ever

[Revoltingest]

In the political economics books that law students use it is written that right wing policies are usually within the supply-side economics.
That is the policies that intend to make the supply rise, often by favoring financial groups. By lowering taxes, mainly.
Supply-side economics - Wikipedia

The Italian perspective is a foreign one to me.
Especially the Putin love thingie.

 

[Heyo]

It's authoritarian.
You lefties often recognize only one definition of "right",
ie, free markets, capitalism. But another is to be
authoritarian. And socialist countries sure do tend
towards authoritarianism / fascism / oppression, eg,
N Korea, Cuba, PRC, USSR.

Have a look at the political compass. You see Stalin in the upper left, Hitler in the upper right, yourself in the lower right and me in the lower left.
I don't call you authoritarian, you are as anti-authoritarian as me.

It seems you're reasoning too much from definitions
personal & culled ad hoc. If we deal with the concepts
then it could be clearer. The words "authoritarian" &
"oppression" aren't associated with any particular
economic system.

Just go with what can be measured by a test, the political compass test.

 

[Estro Felino]

It is interesting to remark that my political compass...was very clear...even in this thread of 4 years ago.
Know your political compass!

This shows I have never had prejudices towards Communism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have a look at the political compass. You see Stalin in the upper left, Hitler in the upper right, yourself in the lower right and me in the lower left.
I don't call you authoritarian, you are as anti-authoritarian as me.

Just go with what can be measured by a test, the political compass test.

You're an authoritarian, but only in the economic sense.
Hitler is misplaced because he exercised great control
over the economy. While he did privatize industries,
there was more at work than just ostensible ownership.
Hitler limited control of operation in significant ways.
Ref...
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia
Excerpted...
...privatization was "applied within a framework of increasing control of the state over the whole economy through regulation and political interference,"[44] as laid out in the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels, which gave the government a role in regulating and controlling the cartels that had been earlier formed in the Weimar Republic under the Cartel Act of 1923.[45]

In real estate we consider "ownership" to be a "bundle of rights".
It's never a case that the owner has unlimited rights.
There's a continuum between unlimited rights & no rights at all.
As the level of control moves from unlimited to severely limited,
the "ownership" disappears, even if the ostensible owner's
name still appears on the title.
So I'd put Hitler somewhere near the vertical axis of the chart.

Edit....
Sometimes government will take away such an important
right, eg, the right to build a house on a lot, that the owner
will sue the government for "inverse condemnation".
It forces government to buy the property because so much
value was removed that the owner is entitled to compensation.
We can see from this that the owner's name on the property's
title can be ownership so limited as to not really own it.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The system does matter because each has requirements
for existence, & this leads to emergent properties.
To discover them, consider the analogy with Evolution, ie,
emergent properties aren't deduced from theoretical
premises....they're discovered by empiricism.
Regarding economics, examine the history of countries
with various systems to see which government styles are
associated with which economic system. Trends do emerge.

We had slavery with capitalism. We've had state military intervention on the behalf of corporations with capitalism. TSA and drug prohibition happened with capitalism. Women and black people not being allowed to vote happened under capitalism. No Irish need apply was under capitalism.
It doesn't matter what economic system, the state is gonna do what it wants to do.

 

[Revoltingest]

We had slavery with capitalism.

Of course we have. There's nothing in the definition
of capitalism to exclude it. But beware using this
criticism...socialism's definition also doesn't exclude it,
& slavery has been used a great deal in socialist
countries, eg, USSR, China.

We've had state military intervention on the behalf of corporations with capitalism.

Yes, there is corruption in capitalist countries.
But there is corruption in socialist countries too,
complete with military adventurism for material
gain, eg, Soviet expansion, Chinese expansion.

So far, you're just complaining about capitalism's
not preventing evil. That isn't an argument, given
that socialism suffers from those flaws too.

TSA and drug prohibition happened with capitalism. Women and black people not being allowed to vote happened under capitalism. No Irish need apply was under capitalism.
It doesn't matter what economic system, the state is gonna do what it wants to do.

To list flaws in capitalist countries is naught but
bias confirmation. It doesn't evaluate which system
offers more liberty & prosperity.

If you're just going to repeat @Stevicus's arguments,
why not coordinate this with him so I don't have to
respond to the same arguments multiple times.

 

[danieldemol]

Aye, that's just capitalism with social welfare programs.
Socialism has "the people" (which is always government)
owning the means of production, ie, no capitalism.

I favor capitalism with social welfare programs.
Call it "social capitalism".

In Australia the political left has a history of setting up and supporting those social welfare programs, the right has a history of trying to abolish them.

So in Australia if you favour having social welfare programs along with private ownership of some industries you are actually better off voting for the left which supports them rather than the right which largely has an agenda of complete privatisation.

So I wouldn't support communism, but I think it a miss characterisation to call Australia a capitalist country, we are actually somewhere between socialism and capitalism.

There does seem to be a middle ground.

In my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

In Australia the political left has a history of setting up and supporting those social welfare programs, the right has a history of trying to abolish them.

So in Australia if you favour having social welfare programs along with private ownership of some industries you are actually better off voting for the left which supports them rather than the right which largely has an agenda of complete privatisation.

So I wouldn't support communism, but I think it a miss characterisation to call Australia a capitalist country, we are actually somewhere between socialism and capitalism.

There does seem to be a middle ground.

In my opinion.

I have a hard time voting for any party other
than those always losing Libertarians.
So when I pick from among Dems & Pubs,
I consider a candidate's likely effect in office.
Example...
I'd have voted for Bernie over Trump.
- No risk that he'd turn us socialist, even though
he identifies as one, & might even want that here.
So I discounted that agenda as irrelevant.
- He was more likely to be anti-war, & in this
matter the President has great power. So this
was a strong point in his favor.

It's not that I like or hate him...not that I agree
or disagree with his beliefs....it's just about
what would happen under his reign.

 

[Stevicus]

If you're just going to repeat @Stevicus's arguments,
why not coordinate this with him so I don't have to
respond to the same arguments multiple times.

I'm still waiting for you to respond to them for the first time.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If you're just going to repeat @Stevicus's arguments,
why not coordinate this with him so I don't have to
respond to the same arguments multiple times.

Our arguments aren't quite the same, because mine is that ultimately it doesn't matter what form of economy you have, the state is gonna do what it's gonna do. My examples merely demonstrate this point, they economic freedom and civil freedoms are not different sides of the same coins.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still waiting for you to respond to them for the first time.

My posts are mostly invisible to socialists.
If you missed it all the prior times, another
post won't work.

 

[Revoltingest]

Our arguments aren't quite the same, because mine is that ultimately it doesn't matter what form of economy you have, the state is gonna do what it's gonna do.

The kind of economic system & the kind of government
are intertwined to some extent. Socialism & communism
both require the prevention of free economic association.
So the state must be central & powerful. Capitalism can
succeed with less authoritarianism because there's no need
to prevent voluntary socialist & communist associations.
This is why you find capitalist societies with great freedom,
but not in socialist ones.

 

[Kooky]

Okay, now do one about anti-fascism. Oh, wait. One is vastly more socially more acceptable for some reason (despite murdering far more people), and the other would get you banned in most places now, so that won't fly.

Do you know what they call people opposed to anti-fascism?

 

[Kooky]

You're still missing my claim....
Capitalism offers the potential for liberty & prosperity.
It has a record of many successes.
It does not deterministic, ie, there are no guarantees.
There have been horrors under capitalism.
Socialism differs in failure every time a country tries it.
It is nothing but horrors.

Please give an example of a country where no horrific things happened under capitalism.

 

[Kooky]

Our arguments aren't quite the same, because mine is that ultimately it doesn't matter what form of economy you have, the state is gonna do what it's gonna do. My examples merely demonstrate this point, they economic freedom and civil freedoms are not different sides of the same coins.

Sounds like the perfect argument in favor of anarchism!

 

[Revoltingest]

Please give an example of a country where no horrific things happened under capitalism.

Why?
I never claimed that.
Are you claiming it, but are unskilled in searching?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Fascism appeals to national pride among the masses, but in practice, it was supported by the upper class capitalists because it promised to keep the restless masses in line (which it largely did in practice). I've said before that capitalism and nationalism are in the same ideological ballpark, because both rely on natural law and social Darwinism as justifications for their beliefs. Capitalists routinely argue that the lower classes deserve their fate because they are weak and stupid and make bad choices, while nationalists would argue that other nations/races deserve to be oppressed and exploited because they are/were weak. "The weak and cowardly perish, and perish justly" is how a nationalist might see it - exactly the same as a capitalist viewpoint.

I see the connection, but nationalism is much older than the origins of Capitalism. Like, again, the Spartans. They didn't have capitalism and just about everything revolved around the state, and they weren't big into consumption or excess given their highly ascetic lives. The rest of the Greeks also tended to be highly nationalist, to the point of having kids for the state. But no capitalism.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds like the perfect argument in favor of anarchism!

No, as anarchy is irreconcilable in too many areas and concerns.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

free economic association.

What is free economic association? Where do the rights on one end the neighbors nose begin?

This is why you find capitalist societies with great freedom,
but not in socialist ones.

Only because you won't accept how those such as France and Norway view themselves. Yes, they allow for capitalism but they have socialism worked into their cores.
Or was the Soviet Union under Gorbachev not socialist because he allowed private business? And what about Lenin and the Castros, who allowed some private business ownership under their reign?

 

[Revoltingest]

What is free economic association?

commerce that is voluntary, ie, not coerced by government.

Where do the rights on one end the neighbors nose begin?

Big question without a context.

Only because you won't accept how those such as France and Norway view themselves. Yes, they allow for capitalism but they have socialism worked into their cores.

Unlike you, I use dictionaries.
If they have capitalism, with private ownership of the
means of production, they're capitalist, not socialist.

Or was the Soviet Union under Gorbachev not socialist because he allowed private business? And what about Lenin and the Castros, who allowed some private business ownership under their reign?

You might wanna provide some info for that claim,
eg, the percentage of the economy, the extent of
government control.