[ingliz]

Construction of large-scale hydrological projects, for one, has never been performed by private individuals for profit

The English canal system, nearly 4,000 miles (over 6,400 kilometres) in length, was constructed by private individuals for profit. Was this not a large-scale hydrological project, and if it was not, what is?

The Army, etc. are not engaged in PRODUCTION...

Sometimes they are.

Examples:

China

PLA involvement in commercial enterprises began in the 1950s and 1960s. Because of the socialist state-owned system and from a desire for military self-sufficiency, the PLA created a network of enterprises such as farms, guest houses, and factories intended to financially support its own needs.

Egypt

In the '60s, under the theory of state-led development, the public sector was central to economic growth, and Egypt’s military became the engine of industry and the supplier of public services. Even the U.S. Agency for International Development treated the Egyptian Armed Forces as a preferred contracting partner.

Turkey

Military factories are operated by the Turkish Land Forces.


Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, Ecuador, Cambodia, Uganda, Ethiopia... etc... etc.. etc.

[Truth To Power]

Construction of large-scale hydrological projects, for one, has never been performed by private individuals for profit

The English canal system, nearly 4,000 miles (over 6,400 kilometres) in length, was constructed by private individuals for profit. Was this not a large-scale hydrological project, and if it was not, what is?

It wasn't, for two reasons:

First, it consists of the sum of hundreds of separate projects, none of which were large in scale on their own.
Second, even in sum, there is no large-scale water diversion.

Examples of large-scale hydrological projects would be the Tennessee Valley Authority, Three Gorges Dam project, Aswan High Dam, Colorado River Aqueduct, Harrison Diversion, James Bay Project, etc.

The Army, etc. are not engaged in PRODUCTION...

Sometimes they are.

Examples:

China

PLA involvement in commercial enterprises began in the 1950s and 1960s. Because of the socialist state-owned system and from a desire for military self-sufficiency, the PLA created a network of enterprises such as farms, guest houses, and factories intended to financially support its own needs.

Egypt

In the '60s, under the theory of state-led development, the public sector was central to economic growth, and Egypt’s military became the engine of industry and the supplier of public services. Even the U.S. Agency for International Development treated the Egyptian Armed Forces as a preferred contracting partner.

Turkey

Military factories are operated by the Turkish Land Forces.


Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, Ecuador, Cambodia, Uganda, Ethiopia... etc... etc.. etc.

These are all irrelevant, as the point was made regarding armies per se ("the Army"), not any particular army. The argument was also applied to the Navy, police, prison guards, etc., none of which are engaged in production as part of their essential function and purpose.

[AuRomin]

First, it consists of the sum of hundreds of separate projects, none of which were large in scale on their own.

Truth, and since every worker that lays his own set of bricks works on his own project, none can truly be large-scale unless done be a single person. This is why I am a transcendentalist and you should denounce cooperation. this is sarcasm

Second, even in sum, there is no large-scale water diversion.

Examples of large-scale hydrological projects would be the Tennessee Valley Authority, Three Gorges Dam project, Aswan High Dam, Colorado River Aqueduct, Harrison Diversion, James Bay Project, etc.

Hmm, seems like you would like to use some sort of personal unspoken subjective system of judgement. This really doesn't work well in argument as it holds no water. Ingliz might as well simply retort back that they are large-scale (with the same effectiveness), and your conversation cannot progress.

[ingliz]

large-scale hydrological projects

Economic cost of constructing England's canal system in 2014 GBP: £67.34 billion*

Economic cost of constructing Three Gorges Dam in 2014 GBP: £33.77 billion

* This measure indicates opportunity cost in terms of the total output of the economy.

Source: Measuring Worth

[Truth To Power]

large-scale hydrological projects

Economic cost of constructing England's canal system in 2014 GBP: £67.34 billion*

Economic cost of constructing Three Gorges Dam in 2014 GBP: £33.77 billion

* This measure indicates opportunity cost in terms of the total output of the economy.

Source: Measuring Worth

It's odd -- i.e., predictable -- that you would try to rescue your demolished claim with irrelevancies. You are aware that the total cost is irrelevant, as none of the small, individual projects were comparable in cost to a genuine large-scale hydrological project. You are also aware that the aggregate cost of the many small projects does not alter the fact that there is no large-scale diversion of water involved, which is the defining characteristic of a large-scale hydrological project. You may not -- but certainly should -- be aware that the aggregate cost of the many small, individual projects that went into the English canal system is not comparable to the cost of the Three Gorges Project because so much of the English system was built hundreds of years ago by manual labor -- i.e., men digging with shovels -- while the Three Gorges Project uses machines that each replace hundreds or even thousands of men.

[ingliz]

men digging with shovels

The construction of the Manchester Ship Canal was a huge undertaking for the time. The cutting of such a significant waterway required the removal of millions of tons of soil and rock. Various machines were employed.

In addition to the large French and German land excavators, several other types of excavator of English design were in use on the Manchester Ship Canal construction. They were more commonly known as steam navvies, and also ran on railway lines.

none of the small, individual projects were comparable in cost to a genuine large-scale hydrological project.

Economic cost of constructing Manchester Ship Canal in 2014 GBP: £22.17 billion

Economic cost of constructing Aswan High Dam in 2014 GBP: £26.33 billion

[Truth To Power]

The construction of the Manchester Ship Canal was a huge undertaking for the time.

Which is one reason private interests couldn't do it.

The cutting of such a significant waterway required the removal of millions of tons of soil and rock. Various machines were employed.

But there was no substantial diversion of water flow, so it wasn't a large-scale hydrological project.

none of the small, individual projects were comparable in cost to a genuine large-scale hydrological project.

Economic cost of constructing Manchester Ship Canal in 2014 GBP: £22.17 billion

Economic cost of constructing Aswan High Dam in 2014 GBP: £26.33 billion

Read and learn, sunshine:

The canal company exhausted its capital of £8 million in 4 years, when only half the construction work was completed.[36] To avoid bankruptcy they appealed for funds to Manchester Corporation[i.e., the City of Manchester -- TTP], which set up a Ship Canal Committee. On 9 March 1891 the corporation decided, on the committee's recommendation, to lend the necessary £3 million, to preserve the city's prestige. In return the corporation was allowed to appoint five of the fifteen members of the board of directors. The company subsequently raised its estimates of the cost of completion in September 1891 and again in June 1892. An executive committee was appointed as an emergency measure in December 1891, and on 14 October 1892 the Ship Canal Committee resolved to lend a further £1.5 million on condition that Manchester Corporation had an absolute majority on the canal company's board of directors and its various sub-committees.[36] The corporation subsequently appointed 11 of the 21 seats,[37] nominated Alderman Sir John Harwood as deputy director of the company, and secured majorities on five of the board's six sub-committees. The cost to Manchester Corporation of financing the Ship Canal Company had a significant impact on local taxpayers. Manchester's municipal debt rose by 67 per cent, resulting in a 26 per cent increase in rates between 1892 and 1895.[38]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchester_Ship_Canal

You see? YOUR OWN EXAMPLE, the best support you could dig up for your false claims, PROVES ME RIGHT AND YOU WRONG. The Manchester Ship Canal was NOT built by private interests. They couldn't do it. The project had to be rescued by GOVERNMENT.

See how easily I always demolish your false claims every time you presume to dispute with me?

Your disgrace is complete. Nothing you can possibly say even matters any more, because you have been comprehensively and conclusively refuted, destroyed, defeated, demolished, annihilated, pulverized and humiliated. Probably the only way to expiate your shame (if you had any) would be to kneel in a cesspool and slit your belly. I don't know any clearer, simpler way to explain that to you.

First, it consists of the sum of hundreds of separate projects, none of which were large in scale on their own.

Truth, and since every worker that lays his own set of bricks works on his own project,

Premise contrary to fact.

none can truly be large-scale unless done be a single person. This is why I am a transcendentalist and you should denounce cooperation. this is sarcasm

Yeah, yeah...

Second, even in sum, there is no large-scale water diversion.

Examples of large-scale hydrological projects would be the Tennessee Valley Authority, Three Gorges Dam project, Aswan High Dam, Colorado River Aqueduct, Harrison Diversion, James Bay Project, etc.

Hmm, seems like you would like to use some sort of personal unspoken subjective system of judgement. This really doesn't work well in argument as it holds no water. Ingliz might as well simply retort back that they are large-scale (with the same effectiveness), and your conversation cannot progress.

I agree that whether a project is large-scale or not is somewhat subjective, and may be a little different in different places and eras. A project that would have been large-scale in ancient Persia might not be in modern China. Anyway, we've seen that the claimed counter-examples actually prove me right.

[ingliz]

the only way to expiate your shame

It is only a shame that you chose not to read further.

"However well this arrangement served the corporation, by the mid-1980s it had become "meaningless". Most of the company's shares were controlled by the property developer John Whittaker, and in 1986 the council agreed to give up all but one of its seats in return for a payment of £10 million."

The corporation chose to lend £4.5 million to the Manchester Ship Canal Company - A private company.

Interest on the loan was paid by the Manchester Ship Canal Company - A private company.

The bond, bought back by the Manchester Ship Canal Company - A private company.

Note:

The advance should not take the form of a permanent loan but debentures... a marketable security... to carry 4½ percent and be redeemable at par on certain dates

debenture noun. (British) A long-term security yielding a fixed rate of interest, issued by a company and secured against assets.

[Truth To Power]

the only way to expiate your shame

It is only a shame that you chose not to read further.

"However well this arrangement served the corporation, by the mid-1980s it had become "meaningless". Most of the company's shares were controlled by the property developer John Whittaker, and in 1986 the council agreed to give up all but one of its seats in return for a payment of £10 million."

So, inevitably, you have chosen to compound your disgrace by doubling down. The fact that a century after the project was finished, a rich, greedy parasite had somehow insinuated himself into a position of ownership over it is, as you are well aware, completely irrelevant to the fact that the project COULD NOT BE BUILT by the private company, and had to be completed with public funding.

The corporation chose to lend £4.5 million to the Manchester Ship Canal Company - A private company.

Because the private company COULDN'T BUILD IT.

Interest on the loan was paid by the Manchester Ship Canal Company - A private company.

Because it had to be bailed out by GOVERNMENT.

The bond, bought back by the Manchester Ship Canal Company - A private company.

Only after decades of concessions, subsidies and giveaways provided by several levels of government to protect the City's loan asset; and even so, it was STILL A FAILURE:

Historian Thomas Stuart Willan has observed that "What may seem to require explanation is not the comparative failure of the Ship Canal but the unquenchable vitality of the myth of its success".

Got that, Ingliz? IT FAILED. THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS COULDN'T DO IT. Thus PROVING ME RIGHT AND YOU WRONG.

Capisci?

The advance should not take the form of a permanent loan but debentures... a marketable security... to carry 4½ percent and be redeemable at par on certain dates

debenture noun. (British) A long-term security yielding a fixed rate of interest, issued by a company and secured against assets.

<yawn> Me right. You wrong. Deal with it.

[ingliz]

bailed out by GOVERNMENT.

Manchester Corporation invested in the canal on commercial terms.

a) The Manchester Ship Canal Company was an entirely private company.

b) Returns on the investment were required and consistent with private sector investment practices.

Historian Thomas Stuart Willan has observed that...

Historian David Elystan Owen has observed that "The success of this new port which could handle timber and other goods more cheaply than Liverpool proved a matter of deep concern to that city"

Got that, TtoP? It was a success. Private individuals could do it. Thus proving me right and you wrong.

[Truth To Power]

bailed out by GOVERNMENT.

Manchester Corporation invested in the canal on commercial terms.

No it didn't. Your claims are flat false. It invested in the canal to preserve the city's prestige and fend off a calamitous PR nightmare if the canal were not finished:

"On 9 March 1891 the corporation decided, on the committee's recommendation, to lend the necessary £3 million, to preserve the city's prestige."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancheste ... #Financing

Got that through your head, ingliz? Not to make a commercial return on the loan. To preserve the city's prestige.

Me right. You wrong.

As usual, you are just heaping disgrace upon yourself by weaseling and squirming to try to rescue your proved-false claims with even more absurd false claims.

a) The Manchester Ship Canal Company was an entirely private company.

No, that's actually just more disingenuous garbage from you:

"Richard Peacock, vice-chairman of the Provisional Manchester Ship Canal Committee, said in 1882: No few individuals should be expected to subscribe and form a company for mere gain; it should be taken on by the public"

And many special provisions were applied to obtain public involvement and support. The company nevertheless went broke halfway through construction of the canal, and had to be bailed out by government.

Got that, ingliz? Me right. You wrong. As always.

b) Returns on the investment were required and consistent with private sector investment practices.

No they weren't. If the returns had been consistent with private sector returns, the company would have been able to get private sector investment. It couldn't, and had to go hat in hand to government, proving me right and you wrong.

Got that, ingliz? Me right. You wrong. As always.

Historian Thomas Stuart Willan has observed that...

Historian David Elystan Owen has observed that "The success of this new port which could handle timber and other goods more cheaply than Liverpool proved a matter of deep concern to that city"

Got that, TtoP? It was a success.

No it wasn't. That claim is just flat false. Obviously the advent of a government-funded competitor for oceanic freighter traffic would be of deep concern to the existing port, but that is the same for anyone going up against government-funded competition: it doesn't matter how much more efficient you are, or how big a failure the government-financed competitor is, you are still having to fight for part of a market that was once all yours.

Private individuals could do it.

Flat false, as already proved to you multiple times. You are disgracing yourself.

Thus proving me right and you wrong.

Disgraceful.

[ingliz]

"Richard Peacock, vice-chairman of the Provisional Manchester Ship Canal Committee, said in 1882: No few individuals should be expected to subscribe and form a company for mere gain; it should be taken on by the public"

It wasn't.

The Committee did not think the present difficulties arose from any innate defect in the project, or that the directors had founded their hopes on an unsound basis. Nothing had occurred to affect the future earning power, and the works as projected were quite practicable.

No it didn't

The Manchester Ship Canal Company was an entirely private company, and Manchester Corporation certainly expected a return. As Mr. Moulton Q.C. said, "The Committee did not think... the directors had founded their hopes on an unsound basis. Nothing had occurred to affect the future earning power".

It wasn't

Historian David Elystan Owen disagrees.

[Truth To Power]

You seem to have trouble with words, so I'll spell it out.

I scored 170/170 on the GRE verbal, Goon. You did not. I have been a professional writer and editor. You have not. If we disagree about words, it's because I am right, and you are not.

Clear?

Two errors here: "state capitalism" is an oxymoron, as capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production

I pointed out that the dictionary disagrees with you:

No, you only incorrectly CLAIMED it disagrees with me. And you were wrong.

1. The definition that you imagined state capitalism had, that is to say, that it was, "an oxymoron," is incorrect

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.

2. The other preconditions you set down did not have to match.

Wrong again.

You retorted by ignoring this entirely and making up a new argument:

Garbage. It's the same argument, and I only ignored irrelevant and fallacious nonsense.

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

Here you fail to understand that "similar" is not synonymous with identical,

No, Goon. That is just you makin' $#!+ up again. Similar means similar, and claims that capitalism is similar to socialism are self-evidently absurd and dishonest.

so even in your attempt to ignore the original topic you're mistaken.

I am the one who is staying on topic, and you will not be identifying any such mistake.

You cover for this by the, bluntly, strange argument tactic of doubling down that "similarity," means, "identical":

You will presumably be providing a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect...?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you won't.

Nonsense. The dictionary does not point out any difference, distinct or otherwise, only similarity.

Again, this is not "identical," as you seem to maintain,

You will presumably be providing a direct, verbatim, in-context quote to that effect...?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: you won't.

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."

nor does it have anything to do with you not understanding the word in the first place.

You're damn right it doesn't, because unlike you I DO understand the word, and use it correctly.

But I think now we can get to the bottom of it and you can start using the words correctly now

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."

So YOUR OWN SOURCE states explicitly that STATE OWNERSHIP of the means of production is SOCIALISM, proving me absolutely and indisputably right, and you absolutely and indisputably wrong.

In response to:

Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society;

I think you're having trouble again.

No, sunshine, I am stating what the OED plainly says, which you are at such pains to deny and obscure.

I'll help

No you won't. You will just try to confuse the issue again. Watch:

I've just checked half a dozen standard dictionaries, which I use professionally, and cannot find anything resembling that definition [" Socialism is an ideology in which the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production"] in any of them. Can you give an actual dictionary source, i.e., other than marxists.org?

I presented one from the premier dictionary in the English dictionary:

No, you didn't:

Freq. with capital initial. A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society;

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."

advocacy or practice of such a system, esp. as a political movement. Now also: any of various systems of liberal social democracy which retain a commitment to social justice and social reform, or feature some degree of state intervention in the running of the economy.

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."

So in point of fact, Goon, it is YOU who are having trouble with words, as you evidently cannot tell the difference between, "the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production," and "state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society."

It is typically understood to involve the elevation of the social position and interests of the working class, esp. through redistribution of land or wealth, nationalization of industry and services, and the creation of workers' cooperatives.

So, still nothing about, "the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production." As I said, and you falsely denied.

It is sometimes used synonymously with (esp. Soviet) Communism, although in some Marxist contexts it is used specifically to denote a transitional stage between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.

So, still nothing about, "the working class, on the co-operative principle, control the means of production."

Now you're confused about what you were speaking about in the first place.

No, Goon, I am not confused, despite your best efforts to confuse the issue.

You also seem to be having some trouble with language again too.

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.

The OED doesn't, "explicitly that STATE OWNERSHIP of the means of production is SOCIALISM."

Yes, it most definitely and explicitly DOES:
"A theory or system of social organization based on state or collective ownership and regulation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange for the common benefit of all members of society... It is typically understood to involve the elevation of the social position and interests of the working class, esp. through redistribution of land or wealth, nationalization of industry and services, and the creation of workers' cooperatives."

Capisci?

It quite clearly leaves, "collective ownership," as an alternative, especially the kind that I described.

So now you are claiming not to know what "or" means?

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.

Capisci???

And, just seeing how you're having trouble with simple language I'm reluctant to go into this, so you can skip it if it's too much—but just because some forms of socialism are defined by state ownership does not mean that all state ownership is socialism.

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.

In the same way, just because a flower is a plant, it does not stand to reason that all plants are flowers

<sigh> YOU are the one who has been affirming the consequent, Goon, not me. See above.

I hope we can agree that is not the relevant sense of socialism, as it is also pretty common in capitalist societies.

That's true, TTP! Capitalist societies do have government ownership of some parts of society and are thoroughly capitalist too!

Equivocation fallacy.

So YOUR OWN SOURCE says socialism involves NATIONALIZATION -- i.e., transfer from private to state ownership -- of industry, again proving me absolutely and indisputably right, and you absolutely and indisputably wrong.

I'm not sure what you think it's contradicting;

Your false claim that state ownership is not socialism.

and remember what I said about the flower example above. If it's too much to understand, then we can suss it out in the philosophy section if it helps you out!

See above. I just schooled you on the subject, and I will thank you to remember it.

The definitive one just proved me right and you wrong again!

This is in reference to me saying:

Your professional dictionaries don't include the definitive one, eh?

Your sentence doesn't make any sense nor address what I brought up.

Wrong again. See above.

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.

Oh, the red text is a link. If you click on it, it will take you to examples.

No it won't.

The link is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... _companies

No large-scale hydrological projects there. Not one.

Try again.

This [the Oxford English Dictionary]

No, M. J. Salès. Try to keep your eye on the ball.

does not indicate what he means, if anything, by "state capitalism."

Those examples were provided so that you can see that the term had a variety of meanings before Connolly used it.

All of them dishonest.

No [it is not legit], it seems the anarchist was falsely claiming, for purposes of deceit, that the state is inherently capitalist.

I'll bet it's a little hard for you to understand. But ask me in another thread, and I can go through chronology for you. You seem to have trouble with dictionaries, so maybe ask an adult to explain the concept to you if you don't feel comfortable asking me.

That's pretty snotty talk for a guy who just got schooled on the meaning of, "or."

Anyone who reads Marx can see his notion of the capitalist class is essentially conspiratorial.

I don't suppose that you have an example?

"Machines were, it may be said, the weapon employed by the capitalist to quell the revolt of specialized labor."

It's not with no reason; it's a plain fact of economics, explained by the Henry George Theorem.

George's ideas were mostly based on extrapolating British land usage to the United States,

No they weren't.

which is somewhat problematic in the 19th century, but he accidentally came to some good conclusions.

There was nothing accidental about it. He understood economics, which Marx did not.

Marx and Engels actually crib one or two of them in the Communist Manifesto.

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.

I'm not sure that the argument you have been making really stands up so far as hating infrastructure.

Hating infrastructure?? What?

Will you be providing a direct, verbatim, in-context quote of that assertion...?

Of course not.

I made no such assertion, as readers can verify for themselves; and eminent domain is irrelevant in any case: it only applies to the land the infrastructure is built on, not the much more extensive land that is thereby made more advantageous to its users.

Since you weren't using real words when espousing Georgism,

I always use real words, and I wasn't espousing Georgism.

I didn't know what you were talking about. You need to write things down so we understand

I am very clear.

I did not rant or rave, and I did not say he hadn't gone to a post office. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. You do that a lot.

And you still don't understand the irony of charging James Connolly with his lack of action in a post office

When did I do that?

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: I didn't.

His "point" is irrelevant and fallacious, because he elided "of the means of production" from "state ownership and control."

Even if this is true, it does not change the fact that his point was that the military was not socialist and your argument was undercut.

No, it was not.

Try reading it again now that I've explained why I said it

Still fallacious.

Yes, and I know what that reason was: to prevent yourself and your readers from knowing the facts.

No, I'm just trying to help you understand and write ideas effectively so that some day we might be able to have a debate.

I write very effectively. Which is why we can't have a debate: it's already over.

Wrong [academics allows you to cite a source from a text and not acknowledge the text].

That's plagiarism.

Or rather, it would have been, if I hadn't cited the source, which I did.

The red text is a link. It will go to citations and other things.

No it won't.

You mean, when you threw up a smokescreen of irrelevancies to weasel out of the fact that you had been conclusively demolished and humiliated?

You were having trouble understanding something so I pasted a summary so you would understand it better.

No, I showed I understood it too well, so you had to put up a smokescreen to hide it.

I think you must have had trouble reading it though. You can ask if you need help!

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.

Now, I've made corrections on your posts in what makes sense and what doesn't.

See above, where I schooled you on the meaning of, "or."

Why don't you reply with something more coherent and we can have a real discussion

You would be vaporized in a real discussion with me.

[The Immortal Goon]

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...

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!

There is no such thing as state capitalism. It's just an oxymoron concocted to blame capitalism for the failures and evils of socialism.

[I adhere strictly to the dictionary] Because I value accurate and honest communication.

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.

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.

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!

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:

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:

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!

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!

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....

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!

Oh, the red text is a link. If you click on it, it will take you to examples.

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

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.

The red text is a link. It will go to citations and other things.

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.

[Davea8]

I don't share your optimism on that. His main problem appears to be that he is much too full of himself. We shouldn't expect him to give that up easily if ever.

[YOLO_Jones]

I haven't taken the time to read every post in this thread but I do have some questions and observations.

I've done some research. I'm in the middle of reading The Communist Manifesto and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primaries.

Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist. Dr. Martin Luther King also advocated for Democratic Socialism.

I too have questions about the terms that are being used. Dr. Cornel West who endorsed Bernie Sanders in the primaries calls himself a Marxist. Cornel West has endorsed Jill Stein of the Green Party for the General Election. The Green Party in their platform is calling for doing away with the U.S. Constitution and starting over citing Venezuela as a model. I was under the impression that Venezuela was a Communist regime in the mold of the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Cuba. I was also under the impression that most American Socialists were holding up the Nordic countries as the model we should be emulating rather than oppressive Communist regimes. What's going on here?

[Paradigm]

I think the broadest definition of socialism I can think of would be a political movement whose ultimate aim is the liberation of the working class from capitalist exploitation. This definition would include many democratic socialists, at least those who adhere to Eduard Bernstein's "evolutionary socialism," but not social democrats, for whom things like universal healthcare and robust labor laws are ends in themselves. To be a socialist, you have to recognize the existence of the class war, and take the side of the working class against the capitalists, whether through reformist or revolutionary means. Not this liberal "We're all in this together" crap, but actively advocating for the liberation of the oppressed. From that starting point, it then becomes a question of strategy.

[Decky]

The Nordic countries are capitalist not socialist. Socialism is not defined as "anything even slightly to the left of the US." Do the working class own the means of production distribution and exchange in Sweden or Norway or Denmark? Of course not. Business is in private hands and production is for private profit. The state is likewise controlled by the rich and not by the working class.

[The Immortal Goon]

Decky and Paradigm are correct.

Think of it like this:

All communists are socialists. But not all socialists are communists.

To further complicate things, the word, "socialist," and, "communist," can both be used as an ideology and a proposed historical state of being.

So, for instance, in the USSR, even though they were all communists, nobody claimed that they had achieved communism. It was the ideology of the active participants, but communism was to come after a period of socialism.

The idea of whether or not the Soviet Union was socialist or not is probably the biggest split in Marxists today, and it came up in a very similar thread.

For the Marxists, the emphasis is on the use of science to explain history, and from there our interaction with the world around us. This relation to socialism was summed up by Engels, if you're interested.

This is different than "Democratic socialism," which is usually a set of reforms based upon policy. This is more like Sweden or Bernie Sanders.

[NightShadows]

I'm all for a socialism and de-centralized political organizations and abolishing authoritarian institutions. That being said, I'm not really a fan of the whole left/right paradigm and do not see my opinions easily fitting into those dichotomies. I honestly I am having doubts lately that liberalism even works anymore, as it's just not realistic. I fear that when the banks and ruling elite gain too much control, whatever flicker there was be snuffed out of existence forever. It's more concerning that when pressed, liberals knowingly deny the plausibility of there being a world banking organization, banking cartels, ruling elite (only selectively, and cautiously when it fits their own agenda's) and thus I am left to conclude that quite often, genuinely on the left and only do so because it is in their best interest to further their own means. I mean, "identity" politics is the best example of this. I mean, it's just the fact this only spoken of in relation to Hitler which makes me wonder about Liberalism. If people cannot get along, then it's "survival of the fittest"as far as I am concerned.

If socialism is not national then what is it then? why it's whole existence relies on the global banking system and continually taking loans, and getting said country into debt; just as it was devised for. National Social solves this problem, but it's "white power" to even mention such a thing? is it because white people are racist or maybe some other group of people that are likely supremacist to their own race or collective just the same.

It's not fair that people of the world should toil away so needlessly all of their lives, and the bankers know that eventually they will get tired or if worse comes to worse, fall ill. So that's what they do, they stand in the back praying on all the downtrodden and marginalized people. "It's your countries fault, they're the bad ones, they're oppressing you. They're all oppressing you. Overthrow and crush anyone who stands in your way" and there you have modern liberalism.

Of course, the original idea of liberalism originates from the age of enlightenment, and it was sort of a different thing all together, not exclusive to Marxism. Is communism even real? that's the whole ideology right there. Capitalism is just being honest, but for people who cannot handle the reality or feel they need a strong authoritarian government to do everything for them. Socialism and self governance can only work if the people decide on its themselves but they won't. We all know how the french revolution went as well. Marxism, over throwing your government? does that even often work in modern context. Countries stay war torn because rebel factions will not stop fighting, no one can agree with each other, so what other solution is there? it's hard to ever say. Sure, we can look at this as the reason people do not deserve their freedom, but...I don't trust them all of the same. That's even worse I think.