The GreyWarden deconstructs a Marxist Black Hand's dissertation. Enjoy reading our discussion and tell me who you think has the stronger arguments.

@Iblegend > I respectfully disagree with the argument presented. The definition of socialism varies depending on the particular ideology or political movement, and it is not accurate to claim that one specific interpretation is the only valid one. Furthermore, the argument seems to conflate different concepts and historical examples in a way that is not accurate or supported by evidence

Greywarden > And i thank you for actually debating the subject with me rather than running away. And no, definitions do not vary, they are clear cut. Socialism is the collective control or ownership of the means of production or state control of the economy. And you haven't proven how the arguments conflate different concepts that are unsupported by evidence. There is a plethora of evidence for the murder of the Kulax and for what were the intentions of the Marxist Socialists. But whatever.

@Iblegend > Firstly, the argument seems to suggest that collective control of the means of production can only be achieved by a specific group, such as a race, gender, or class collective. However, this is not necessarily the case. Socialism is based on the idea that the means of production should be owned and controlled collectively by society as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations. This can be achieved through a variety of means, such as worker cooperatives, state ownership, or community ownership

Greywarden > I never excluded society. You are creating a Strawman. Public Control, State Control, National Control, Group Control, Race Control, Worker Control or ownership of any of these are different forms of Socialism. I never claimed they are all the same. But for you to suggest that some how they are Capitalism because some forms of socialism are different is precisely where your error is, and you can't find a solution to this problem. I see you returned to the Corporation Fallacy again. Corporations are not Private, they are Publicly held and traded. Private cannot be Public Simultaneously and are two completely different things. Private individuals are you, i and Jose. If a collective owns or controls our economy than we as individuals are slaves of the State. Capitalism is none State. How do you address this problem?

@Iblegend > Secondly, the argument suggests that corporations are public sector entities and are a form of state-controlled syndicates. While it is true that some corporations are partially or wholly owned by the state, the majority of corporations are privately owned and operated for the benefit of their shareholders.

Greywarden > The above presents a major problem for you. You just said they are operated for the benefit of their shareholders? If Corporations are traded in the Stock Exchange than they aren't Private. They are owned by Society which is the Public. You make it seem as if Public Ownership is the samething as Private Ownership. No, Corporations aren't Privately owned. They are owned by a collective which is Society not indviduals. Even the "Private Corporations" are not Privately owned. If you look into the Koch Brothers Corporations you will see that a collective owns them. David Koch only had 42% ownership of Koch brothers industry before he died. There are a plethora of Coprations bundled together with the Koch brothers Industries. By definition they aren't really private, even if the Central State weren't to control them as they are controlled by their own collective who are deeply involved in Politics and swaying elections through dark money.

@Iblegend > Corporations operate within a market economy, where the means of production are owned by private individuals or corporations, not by society as a whole. This is fundamentally different from the socialist ideal of collective ownership and control of the means of production

Greywarden > No no no, that is rubbish. The Private Individual does not own the means of production of the Market Economy. The market is state controlled which gives the state defacto ownership of the means of production, not the private individual as you assert.

Greywarden > The majority of Corporation are in the Stock Exchange which are Publicly Traded and State Controlled which in turn is Socialism not Capitalism. The Public owns Corporations. The Public Sector cannot simultaneously be the Private Sector. Furthermore, to conclude that Socialism is none Market is erroneous. Marxism may be non market. But in no way does Marxism define Socialism accurately other than being another form of Socialism. If a Market is controlled by the State, then it isn't a free market and thus not a Capitalist Market. You do not accurately understand the definition of Socialism. Just because a Market exists does not automatically mean it is a Capitalist Market.

Greywarden > Moreover, where there are Black Markets, that only means there is Socialism. Black Markets cannot exist in Capitalist Economies where everyone is fending for themselves. The U.S has a black market which proves it is a Socialist Economy. The Black Markets are the Capitalists lol.

Greywarden > But if you still believe the individual has private ownership in the U.S. Why don't you put this to the test. Buy a home with Cash without depending on banks. Then try never agreeing to pay your property taxes. Comeback to me and tell me if you are able to keep your home. You are not a private owner of what you are led to believe is your own property. Even Cuba is more Capitalist when it comes to property. Any property that are Purchased in Cuba are yours and you aren't tax for it. The property actually belongs to you the individual..

@Iblegend > Thirdly, the argument makes an inaccurate and unfair comparison between socialism and fascism. Fascism is a far-right ideology that is based on authoritarianism, nationalism, and the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.

Greywarden > You haven't proven that Fascism is a Far Right Ideology. Doesn't seem like you have read the works of Mussolini as i have been doing. Mussolini had State Control of the Means of Production during his Reign. Mussolini said like this in his speech in Milan and you can look it up if you'd like, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." If you study Mussolini closely, which i am sure you haven't. You will see that Mussolini Socialized the people through their Italian Nationality. His Socialism was based on the Italian Nationality as he tried to bring all Italians together under the State. There is no possible way Mussolini was a Capitalist. Mussolini and even the inventor of Fascism Gentile were opponents of Capitalism. They hated Capitalism! Moreover, Nationalism and Socialism are one and the same. To Nationalise a business is the same as Socialising a Business. To Nationalise the people is the same as Socialisng the people. What exactly is the difference between Nationalizing the Economy or Socializing the Economy? What is the difference between Nationalization of the Private Sector or Socialization of the Private Sector? You tell me..

@Iblegend > It is not accurate to claim that fascism is a form of socialism, or that Mussolini was a socialist. Mussolini and the fascist regime in Italy were fiercely anti-socialist and anti-communist, and actively suppressed socialist and labor movements.

Greywarden > Actually they weren't Anti-Socialist lol. Mussolini tried to end the Class Crisis Marxism had caused by offering people another version of Socialism Gentile called Fascism. Mussolini was the man that put Gentile's ideas into practice. Mussolini offered Fascism as a third way between Marxism and Capitalism. Even if you are able to prove that Mussolini hated Marxism because he was kicked out of the Marxist anti war party of Italy for being a warmonger. You still can't prove that by default that makes him a Capitalist as he also hated Capitalism. You see, your ideas blind you from the facts that Mussolini hated Capitalism as well, and thus couldn't be a Capitalist just because he was not a Marxist.

@Iblegend > Finally, the argument suggests that individualism and collectivism are polar opposites, and that socialism necessarily entails state control of the economy and the suppression of individual freedom. However, this is a simplistic and inaccurate view of both individualism and collectivism. In reality, most political and economic systems contain elements of both individualism and collectivism, and the relationship between the two is complex and multifaceted. It is possible to have a socialist system that allows for individual autonomy and freedom, while still maintaining collective control over the means of production.

Greywarden > There is no argument that says that Collectivism and Individualism are Polar Opposites. Collectivism and Individualism by definition are Polar Opposites and that is a fact. The only reason why some socialist economies allow for some individual freedoms is because they haven't implemented full socialism. Individual ownership and control of your own economy is Capitalism not Socialism. You haven't proven how individualism can be one and the same as collectivism. You are dancing around the points I've made by trying to prove that Individualism can mean two things at once which isn't possible. And mocking arguments you can't refute by calling them simplistic does not make your case that Individualism can mean the same thing as Collectivism stronger. It actually exposes a huge contradiction with your line of reasoning that you can't resolve.

@Iblegend > In conclusion, the argument presented contains several inaccuracies and conflations of different concepts and historical examples. It is important to approach these complex issues with nuance and accuracy, rather than resorting to simplistic and inaccurate comparisons and generalizations.

Greywarden > Again you accuse me of being simplistic because i am taking definitions of terms at face value and not trying to explain away how Private can mean Public at the same time and how an individual can mean a collective at the same time. If you weren't blinded by the doctrines of Marxists you would be able to see how illogical your position is. You are not going to win a debate through illogic
The GreyWarden deconstructs a Marxist Black Hand's dissertation. Enjoy reading our discussion and tell me who you think has the stronger arguments. @Iblegend > I respectfully disagree with the argument presented. The definition of socialism varies depending on the particular ideology or political movement, and it is not accurate to claim that one specific interpretation is the only valid one. Furthermore, the argument seems to conflate different concepts and historical examples in a way that is not accurate or supported by evidence Greywarden > And i thank you for actually debating the subject with me rather than running away. And no, definitions do not vary, they are clear cut. Socialism is the collective control or ownership of the means of production or state control of the economy. And you haven't proven how the arguments conflate different concepts that are unsupported by evidence. There is a plethora of evidence for the murder of the Kulax and for what were the intentions of the Marxist Socialists. But whatever. @Iblegend > Firstly, the argument seems to suggest that collective control of the means of production can only be achieved by a specific group, such as a race, gender, or class collective. However, this is not necessarily the case. Socialism is based on the idea that the means of production should be owned and controlled collectively by society as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations. This can be achieved through a variety of means, such as worker cooperatives, state ownership, or community ownership Greywarden > I never excluded society. You are creating a Strawman. Public Control, State Control, National Control, Group Control, Race Control, Worker Control or ownership of any of these are different forms of Socialism. I never claimed they are all the same. But for you to suggest that some how they are Capitalism because some forms of socialism are different is precisely where your error is, and you can't find a solution to this problem. I see you returned to the Corporation Fallacy again. Corporations are not Private, they are Publicly held and traded. Private cannot be Public Simultaneously and are two completely different things. Private individuals are you, i and Jose. If a collective owns or controls our economy than we as individuals are slaves of the State. Capitalism is none State. How do you address this problem? @Iblegend > Secondly, the argument suggests that corporations are public sector entities and are a form of state-controlled syndicates. While it is true that some corporations are partially or wholly owned by the state, the majority of corporations are privately owned and operated for the benefit of their shareholders. Greywarden > The above presents a major problem for you. You just said they are operated for the benefit of their shareholders? If Corporations are traded in the Stock Exchange than they aren't Private. They are owned by Society which is the Public. You make it seem as if Public Ownership is the samething as Private Ownership. No, Corporations aren't Privately owned. They are owned by a collective which is Society not indviduals. Even the "Private Corporations" are not Privately owned. If you look into the Koch Brothers Corporations you will see that a collective owns them. David Koch only had 42% ownership of Koch brothers industry before he died. There are a plethora of Coprations bundled together with the Koch brothers Industries. By definition they aren't really private, even if the Central State weren't to control them as they are controlled by their own collective who are deeply involved in Politics and swaying elections through dark money. @Iblegend > Corporations operate within a market economy, where the means of production are owned by private individuals or corporations, not by society as a whole. This is fundamentally different from the socialist ideal of collective ownership and control of the means of production Greywarden > No no no, that is rubbish. The Private Individual does not own the means of production of the Market Economy. The market is state controlled which gives the state defacto ownership of the means of production, not the private individual as you assert. Greywarden > The majority of Corporation are in the Stock Exchange which are Publicly Traded and State Controlled which in turn is Socialism not Capitalism. The Public owns Corporations. The Public Sector cannot simultaneously be the Private Sector. Furthermore, to conclude that Socialism is none Market is erroneous. Marxism may be non market. But in no way does Marxism define Socialism accurately other than being another form of Socialism. If a Market is controlled by the State, then it isn't a free market and thus not a Capitalist Market. You do not accurately understand the definition of Socialism. Just because a Market exists does not automatically mean it is a Capitalist Market. Greywarden > Moreover, where there are Black Markets, that only means there is Socialism. Black Markets cannot exist in Capitalist Economies where everyone is fending for themselves. The U.S has a black market which proves it is a Socialist Economy. The Black Markets are the Capitalists lol. Greywarden > But if you still believe the individual has private ownership in the U.S. Why don't you put this to the test. Buy a home with Cash without depending on banks. Then try never agreeing to pay your property taxes. Comeback to me and tell me if you are able to keep your home. You are not a private owner of what you are led to believe is your own property. Even Cuba is more Capitalist when it comes to property. Any property that are Purchased in Cuba are yours and you aren't tax for it. The property actually belongs to you the individual.. @Iblegend > Thirdly, the argument makes an inaccurate and unfair comparison between socialism and fascism. Fascism is a far-right ideology that is based on authoritarianism, nationalism, and the suppression of individual rights and freedoms. Greywarden > You haven't proven that Fascism is a Far Right Ideology. Doesn't seem like you have read the works of Mussolini as i have been doing. Mussolini had State Control of the Means of Production during his Reign. Mussolini said like this in his speech in Milan and you can look it up if you'd like, "Everything in the State, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." If you study Mussolini closely, which i am sure you haven't. You will see that Mussolini Socialized the people through their Italian Nationality. His Socialism was based on the Italian Nationality as he tried to bring all Italians together under the State. There is no possible way Mussolini was a Capitalist. Mussolini and even the inventor of Fascism Gentile were opponents of Capitalism. They hated Capitalism! Moreover, Nationalism and Socialism are one and the same. To Nationalise a business is the same as Socialising a Business. To Nationalise the people is the same as Socialisng the people. What exactly is the difference between Nationalizing the Economy or Socializing the Economy? What is the difference between Nationalization of the Private Sector or Socialization of the Private Sector? You tell me.. @Iblegend > It is not accurate to claim that fascism is a form of socialism, or that Mussolini was a socialist. Mussolini and the fascist regime in Italy were fiercely anti-socialist and anti-communist, and actively suppressed socialist and labor movements. Greywarden > Actually they weren't Anti-Socialist lol. Mussolini tried to end the Class Crisis Marxism had caused by offering people another version of Socialism Gentile called Fascism. Mussolini was the man that put Gentile's ideas into practice. Mussolini offered Fascism as a third way between Marxism and Capitalism. Even if you are able to prove that Mussolini hated Marxism because he was kicked out of the Marxist anti war party of Italy for being a warmonger. You still can't prove that by default that makes him a Capitalist as he also hated Capitalism. You see, your ideas blind you from the facts that Mussolini hated Capitalism as well, and thus couldn't be a Capitalist just because he was not a Marxist. @Iblegend > Finally, the argument suggests that individualism and collectivism are polar opposites, and that socialism necessarily entails state control of the economy and the suppression of individual freedom. However, this is a simplistic and inaccurate view of both individualism and collectivism. In reality, most political and economic systems contain elements of both individualism and collectivism, and the relationship between the two is complex and multifaceted. It is possible to have a socialist system that allows for individual autonomy and freedom, while still maintaining collective control over the means of production. Greywarden > There is no argument that says that Collectivism and Individualism are Polar Opposites. Collectivism and Individualism by definition are Polar Opposites and that is a fact. The only reason why some socialist economies allow for some individual freedoms is because they haven't implemented full socialism. Individual ownership and control of your own economy is Capitalism not Socialism. You haven't proven how individualism can be one and the same as collectivism. You are dancing around the points I've made by trying to prove that Individualism can mean two things at once which isn't possible. And mocking arguments you can't refute by calling them simplistic does not make your case that Individualism can mean the same thing as Collectivism stronger. It actually exposes a huge contradiction with your line of reasoning that you can't resolve. @Iblegend > In conclusion, the argument presented contains several inaccuracies and conflations of different concepts and historical examples. It is important to approach these complex issues with nuance and accuracy, rather than resorting to simplistic and inaccurate comparisons and generalizations. Greywarden > Again you accuse me of being simplistic because i am taking definitions of terms at face value and not trying to explain away how Private can mean Public at the same time and how an individual can mean a collective at the same time. If you weren't blinded by the doctrines of Marxists you would be able to see how illogical your position is. You are not going to win a debate through illogic
Like
17
3 Comments 0 Shares 5375 Views