Truth To Power wrote:I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal, Goon. You did not.
I didn't take it as I went to graduate school in Europe. However, you did when you took the test, you seem to have trouble with it now.
I have been a professional writer and editor. You have not.
Actually, I have and still am
I also teach university students how to write and edit.
If we disagree about words, it's because I am right, and you are not.
I think this is both an Argument from Authority logical fallacy and Affirming the Consequent logical fallacy. In the future, try to look up logical fallacies and avoid them. Doing so can really help make your case!
I'll show you some examples in your own responses, and maybe then you can try to build a more coherent argument.
No it's not. "State capitalism" in fact means socialism -- specifically, state socialism -- not capitalism, so it is definitely an oxymoron. It's simply a term that socialists have fabricated in order to shift the blame for the failures of socialism onto capitalism. By persistently using it in socialist propaganda, they have forced lexicographers to recognize their dishonest usage of the words.
You have yet to have a single force that claims this except for you. Since the only thing you have to back you is that you're a guy on the internet that claims to be a professional writer with a flair for misusing words, no access to the OED, and pretending to yawn by writing it down, you're trying to use an Argument from Authority logical fallacy.
In order to make this work, of course, you have to debunk dictionaries, academia, and socialists in their collective use of the word, "socialist," in order to argue that you are the only authority on the subject. You did this by claiming that everyone else was in a conspiracy against you.
Let's assume that this is true and we all decided that we were going to make an international effort involving thousands of people from hundreds of institutions to make one of your posts on the Internet seem incorrect.
This would still be a logical fallacy on your part as we can demonstrate that fallacious arguments from authority are common, and you as the only expert not involved in the conspiracy against you are still prone to error and not necessarily always correct.
What you should do to avoid a logical fallacy is find proof of this pesky conspiracy, or find a legitimate source that claims that capitalism is socialism. Then we can debate the merits without having to trip over your trouble forming coherent arguements.
As for the texts that disagree with you and the conspiracy against you personally...
TTP wrote:Garbage [i did not make up a new argument] It's the same argument, and I only ignored irrelevant and fallacious nonsense.
It's probably a good thing that you are trying to simplify the discussion as much as possible as you seem to be having trouble keeping track of it. I won't try to keep bringing up these concepts that seem hard for you, but I didn't bring up anything "irrelevant" or, "fallacious." If it seemed like it, you probably just had some trouble with your understanding of the content.
You might be having trouble keeping your argument straight. It can be hard to do so when you keep changing it, so it's always a little easier to keep on topic in the future. I'll show you a few instances where you changed your argument. Once you work out what you mean, you can try again!
TTP wrote:There is no such thing as state capitalism. It's just an oxymoron concocted to blame capitalism for the failures and evils of socialism.
TTP wrote:[I adhere strictly to the dictionary] Because I value accurate and honest communication.
TTP wrote:This stupid, dishonest garbage again? Webster's also (surprise!) has an entry for "state capitalism."
I can go on, but you can see here that first there is no state capitalism, then there is state capitalism as defined by the dictionary which you regard as the only source of knowledge in this case. Though, as pointed out, you also think that dictionaries are involved in a conspiracy in other cases.
Clean up the argument a little bit, and you might have something to present next time!
No, Goon. That is just you makin' $#!+ up again...claims that capitalism is similar to socialism are self-evidently absurd and dishonest.
TTP wrote:Capitalism and socialism are both based on the same false assumption: that there is no crucial difference between land and capital. Socialists pretend capital is land to justify stealing capital, capitalists pretend land is capital to justify stealing land. But land is not capital any more than capital is land.
I won't rip that apart any further as you've already had trouble following from here.
TTP wrote: I am the one who is staying on topic, and you will not be identifying any such mistake.
Oh, you've had trouble following the topic, so I'll just
link you to where I was identifying that mistake. That or you got your tenses wrong. But that's okay, they can be tricky!
TTP wrote:You will presumably be providing a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect...?
Of course!
You said state capitalism didn't exist, as pointed out above.
I provided a dictionary example, as pointed out above.
You then said that it doesn't count because:
TTP wrote:Yes, well, if you look a little further in the same source, you will find this gem of clarity:
"state capitalism
noun 1. a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism
Which you mistakenly took to complete your thesis that state capitalism was state socialism.
I pointed out that:
TIG wrote:Which, actually, disproves your point that socialism and state capitalism are the same thing as there is a distinct difference that the dictionary points out.
But similar and identical are two words that lots of people might get confused. It's okay, try again now that you've improved your vocabulary!
TTP wrote:Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you won't.
You seem to be having trouble with your tenses...
This idea that I am claiming "similar" means "identical" is simply some nonsense that you have made up, to distract readers from the fact that similar means "similar," not "different."
Then I'm assuming you concede that you were mistaken, maybe just having some trouble with reading, and there is a difference between capitalism and socialism.
Enough of your despicable, supercilious tripe. I have been using them correctly all along. It is only deceitful and disingenuous socialist propagandists who have tried to blame capitalism for socialism's failures by dishonestly calling socialism, "state capitalism."
Take some time and look at this post and the dictionaries again. It might click for you this time!
No, sunshine, I am stating what the OED plainly says, which you are at such pains to deny and obscure.
Try reading my first post in this thread and respond again to this after that!
No, you didn't [use the premier English dictionary]
The Oxford English Dictionary is generally assumed to be the authority on the language. You should look into it, it might help out!
So as I informed you before, and you falsely denied, there is nothing there about, "the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production."
Read the definition again, and then look at what I wrote. You'll see the definition gives some latitude for context.
Remember when you were having trouble with context before?
I asked you how you would tell if the word, "drawer," meant something that one pulled out of furniture to store things, or someone that drew. You had some trouble with that, but it's the same thing.
No, Goon, I am not confused, despite your best efforts to confuse the issue.
I think our readers can tell who is confused. But don't worry, you'll get it
No, Goon, you are. I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal. You did not. I have been a professional writer and editor. You have not. If we disagree about words, it's because you are wrong.
You already wrote this. Sometimes it helps to go over your work again!
TTP wrote:Let me try to explain it to you: if a spouse is defined as a husband or wife, then it means that a husband is a spouse, and a wife is a spouse. It does NOT mean that a spouse is necessarily a wife.
Clear so far?
Similarly, if socialism is defined as collective worker or state ownership of the means of production (see OED), then collective worker ownership is socialism, AND STATE OWNERSHIP IS SOCIALISM. It does NOT MEAN that socialism is necessarily collective worker ownership.
You're confused by the concept of, "identical," and, "similar," again. Use a dictionary, it seems to be a tricky one for you!
"Collective worker ownership" is not necessarily, "state ownership." I can see how that might be confusing to a novice. Read the definitions a few times and I think you can get it!
Capisci???
Exactly, you're getting better at this! Just re-read what you write and understand the words you don't, and you should have a readable text soon
Yes, it does, just as all husbands are spouses. See above. And more particularly, it means that contrary to your false claims, socialism need not be collective worker ownership.
You're getting confused again. That's okay, reading can be hard for some people
I defined socialism using
historic sources with full citations.You only had access to second-rate dictionaries and said that my
definition was impossible.
This is also where you had a little problem with the reading and thought that the concept of, "identical," was the same as, "similar." But I think we worked that out for you!
I then pointed out that the Oxford English Dictionary not only allowed my definition, but had historic context for it.This is something that you've been struggling with, apparently. I've explained it several times in this post though. Just go ahead and read through everything again and sound out the words that you have trouble with. You can ask me if you don't understand them, or you can ask someone else if you keep having trouble using dictionaries and are too embarassed to ask me!!!
Your false claim that state ownership is not socialism.
I realize that my language was probably a little too sophisticated for you, so I won't try to continue to explain this point. Just read slowly, out loud if need be, and ask for help. We're here to help people learn!
See above. I just schooled you on the subject, and I will thank you to remember it.
Awwwww....
TTP wrote:Oh, really? If it wasn't true, then you must be able to provide an example of a large-scale hydrological project built by private individuals for profit.
I'm waiting.
I've already given you links on the subject where you can click to get more information. You seem to have trouble doing it. Run the arrow on your screen over the red text and press the button on the left.
If you have trouble with left and right, extend both your thumb and index fingers on both hands. The one that looks like an, "L," is on your left.
Once you click on the link, you should see lots of examples of privately owned dams. You can then research them from there.
If you keep having trouble, then let one of us know!
I wrote:Oh, the red text is a link. If you click on it, it will take you to examples.
TTP wrote:No it won't.
Just left click like I explained above!
Try again.
You were already having a discussion with someone that pointed out that you were wrong about the dam ownership. I provided a source that you seem unable to use. You can ask either of us about specifics if it gets to confusing for you
TTP wrote:All of them [the Oxford English Dictionary's examples of people using the word "state capitalism" were] dishonest.
Even at the beginning of this post you accepted the OED. It can be trusted!
But since you seem to have trouble reading and writing, maybe it's worth pointing out that you can look at all of their works in inventing the term.
But really, it's probably my fault for assuming that you would understand that the Oxford English Dictionary explains the origin of words and where they are first used. It seems a little complicated. But don't worry, my slower first year students sometimes have the same trouble and many of them are able to catch up if they put some work into it, and it seems like you're willing to do so!
That's pretty snotty talk for a guy who just got schooled on the meaning of, "or."
Try reading the thread over again if you have trouble! Try to use specific words and phrases and it makes it easier for us to address your deficiencies in interpreting what's going on.
[an example of Marxism being a conspiracy theory is that] "Machines were, it may be said, the weapon employed by the capitalist to quell the revolt of specialized labor."
Sometimes it helps to use citations so that we can know what we're talking about. Those red letters that you have trouble clicking on are examples of citations.
However, fortunately for you, I know words and history well enough that I can help you understand the quote
It's not a conspiracy theory from Marx for a few reasons. First, he's clear that he's speaking in the general instead of the specific in the way he uses the, "it may be said."
But more broadly, he's almost certainly talking about the Guild System. I won't try to confuse you with links, but the Guild System is sometimes called Proto-Industrialization (that means a system that was like industrialization before industrialization!).
So let's say that you are really good at making shoes. You can join a guild with other people making shoes (sometimes called a, "cobbler") and get more money from that as a specialist worker.
However, if you were a banker, you probably wouldn't want to pay someone the extra wages to make shoes if you were investing in making a factory yourself. Instead of getting the experts that made them by hand (the cobblers) you'd use machines to lower the needed skill to make shoes, and make more for cheaper.
So the specialists (the shoe makers, and if you remember, they're called "cobblers") might resent not getting paid to make a shoe any more, but the investors in factories, would rather pay people with little skill to use a machine to make them.
I know that this may be complicated, but this isn't a conspiracy, it's an economic issue that happen today!
If you read the news, you'll probably read something about it. Or, even better for a beginner, maybe try watching the news!
You should probably add, "conspiracy," to words that you look up before you post next
No they [George's theories about land value being contextualize do in his own time] weren't.
This is another example where citations or explanations can be helpful!
There was nothing accidental about it. He understood economics, which Marx did not.
This may be complicated, but go ahead and do some reading. Honestly though, I think that it's safe to say that both George and Marx seem a little over your head at this point. However, we do have an economics sub forum where you can ask questions and try to learn more.
The Communist Manifesto was published 30 years before "Progress and Poverty." Land taxation was already in the air, and had been advocated by Quesnay, Turgot, Smith, Ricardo and Mill.
Since the last post, you don't seem to have learned anything about historical chronology. But maybe that's too much to expect from you right now.
It's difficult to get for beginners sometimes. So let's go back to one of the other lessons: if you click with the left side of your mouse (how do you tell right from left again
?) then you can read the context of what I was speaking about.
I will try not to be so complicated in the future and try to use smaller words for you though. Let me know if you get a handle on reading citations. I find them helpful, but if you're having trouble, maybe it would be best if I just tried to explain things instead and left more nuanced explanations out.
Hating infrastructure?? What?
Maybe you forgot what the word meant since you last looked it up.
This is a link. It is in reference to what we were talking about.
Remember how to click it?
I always use real words, and I wasn't espousing Georgism.
And yet you referenced him...I suppose it was too much to expect you knew the big words for what you were talking about. You should try googling the subjects that you don't understand.
I am very clear.
Ah, sweety, you think you're clear, but it doesn't come across. You need to practice writing a little bit more. But I think you'll get it, you certainly have the drive!
When did I do that [not understand the irony of accusing James Connolly of not accomplishing anything in a post office]?
I shouldn't laugh, but it's still funny. Use your words and the Internet.
No, it [the argument that the military is socialist] was not [true].
You should try looking at history.
Would you say that the ancient Assyrians were socialists? Why or why not?
If you don't know who the Assyrians were, maybe ask yourself what the United States military thought about socialism in the Cold War. Were they all socialists?
Use the Internet. Next time we talk, try to have an answer based on the research you've done
I write very effectively. Which is why we can't have a debate: it's already over.
No, I won't give up on you. I believe that you can do better!
Or rather, it would have been [plagerism], if I hadn't cited [a different source that I attributed to another] source, which I did.
That's still plagerism.
TIG wrote:The red text is a link. It will go to citations and other things.
TTP wrote:No it won't.
This may be one of the main problems that you're having. It actually will! I explained to you how to tell right from left and how to click the link. Let me know in your reply if you're still having the same problem!
No, I showed I understood it too well, so you had to put up a smokescreen to hide it.
Don't think of not knowing words and context as a smokescreen: Think about it as an oppertunity to try and learn more
170/170 on the GRE verbal. Try to remember that next time you are tempted to make stupid claims about which of us is having trouble reading.
Try reading above. You already claimed this.
I often tell my students to make an outline before they try making an argument. You should too! It will stop with the repetition and probably make a more coherent argument, while also outlining for yourself some of the things that you should brush up on.
See above, where I schooled you on the meaning of, "or."
Again, an outline might help this kind of repetition of nothing in particular that seems to happen for no reason.
You would be vaporized in a real discussion with me.
Try looking up the word, "vaporized," in the dictionary and see if that's the word that you meant to use. I'm guessing it's not.
V isn't a letter used much in the English language, maybe you have difficulty with the definition for that reason.
Do a little brushing up, and then we can start having the real argument. I look forward to it, and I do think you're making some progress.