[Pants-of-dog]

...some random ad hominem that does not refute anything.,.

So you have no logical or intelligent refutation of the fact that many socialist movements are not oppressive at all, while many capitalist governments are.

Slavery has been a feature of human relations since forever, throughout all the world, only the western world specifically Christian Europe during the High Christian period from 900 AD to almost the present day, featured any kind of serious wholesale rollback on slavery. The industrial revolution (which lefties like to pretend is full scope of capitalism though it is not) occurred in a country that was the least offensive on that score. You are trying to make a correlation into a causation which doesn't work because the actual correlation is the opposite of what you are trying to decieve us into accepting. Western Europeans, like the British, were the least reliant on slavery for labour at the time of the industrial revolution.

Long winded commentary aside, we agree that slavery existed in many countries that were not socialist, and that slavery still exists in capitalist countries today.

Better in a sweatshop than a gulag. You have to talk down capitalism at least as much as you talk up gulags as being wonderful places of caring and sharing but even so all you have is "sweatshops" which are better than gulags by a country mile.

Your weird opinions about which slavery are preferable do not change the fact that capitalists love sweatshops because they can make a profit by oppressing workers.

No they don't because my claim is that capitalism does not depend on sweatshops, they are optional. What you are doing is a fallacious as this bit of faux logic:
Tobacco is a unhealthy product, some people consume tobacco and some people supply tobacco therefore capitalism depends on tobacco and will die of lung cancer.

You misread my post.

I never said capitalism depends on sweatshops, though in some places like Bangladesh, it probably does.

I said it depends on a large class of people who are willing to work at jobs they would not voluntarily do for pay they would not voluntarily accept.

....random ad hominems....

Anyway, your claim about slavery only existing in socialist countries has been proven wrong.

No you are deceptively pretending that metaphorical force is the same as actual force. So I am hungry, the gods or darwin made me a being that must constantly be shoveling food into my gob to stay alive and I do want to stay alive. Consequently I can say METAPHORICALLY that I am "forced" (by my own nature!) to do some work to get some food. This is not at all the same thing as one person threatening to physically torture another person if they do not work for free; this is ACTUAL slavery.

Again, by your previous definition of slavery, anyone who is doing work they would not otherwise do is a slave. This would be a good description of anyone who has had to work a crappy job in order to make ends meet.

You now seem to be changing your definition of slavery.

No it doesn't, in fact day by day the less work is actually done by people at all and is instead done by machines. The more modern the capitalism the less labour is needed and the more "work" is really just gently tapping a few buttons now and again. @Decky is probably the only person on this entire forum that actually does something like actual labour in the course of his trade the rest of us are just gently tapping buttons. How much labour do you think I do as a taxi driver? The car does all the work, I just control it. If a customer has a bag I might help throw it into the back but that is all I do.

You are now generalising from your own experience. Just because you never did manual labour does not mean the rest of us have not and do not. This is why this is a logical fallacy on your part.

Nor does it change the fact that capitalism depends on a large class of people who are willing to work at jobs they would not voluntarily do for pay they would not voluntarily accept. This includes most of the developing world.

Just because life isn't a perfect utopia populated entirely by angels doesn't mean any of us deserve to suffer the hell of socialism.

This is not a response to my point in any way.

But I am glad that you agree that economic exploitation exists.

Regulations are not an automatic good. Sometimes they make things worse and sometimes they are just a stupid waste. ..and then more dumb ad hominems....

No one was talking about whether or not regulations are good.

The point, that you seem to have ignored, is that sweatshops do exist in western and capitalist countries with decent government.

No the rational thing for sweatshop workers to want is for more capitalism not less. A sweatshop is not the path to fame and fortune but it is probably better than subsistence farming, begging or starving...and a random ad hominem....

No, because capitalism will only support more sweatshops.

[SolarCross]

@Pants-of-dog
Since you can't adequately respond to my points perhaps you can try and answer this simple question instead:

How will you as a socialist motivate me as a non-socialist to do any work after your revolution?

[Pants-of-dog]

....some random and incorrect ad hominem....

How will you as a socialist motivate me as a non-socialist to do any work after your revolution?

I would not bother.

I would simply exile you to a capitalist country.

[SolarCross]

I would not bother.

I would simply exile you to a capitalist country.

Well luckily I live in the UK so I guess I will never have to move then.

I suppose since you live in a capitalist country you should be exiled to the DPRK or Cuba?

[Pants-of-dog]

.....more off topic irrelevancies....

As long as we are clear that your weird slavery argument was just an ad hominem.

[SolarCross]

As long as we are clear that your weird slavery argument was just an ad hominem.

As long as we are clear that by your own agenda you should be exiled from the country you are occupying.

[Pants-of-dog]

...more random irrelevancies...

Anyway, socialism is about ending economic exploitation.

[SolarCross]

Anyway, socialism is about ending economic exploitation.

.. by making it worse, gotcha.

[Pants-of-dog]

You really like random ad hominems instead of arguments.

This is why it is easy to make socialism look good with you.

Here is capitalism:

Dhaka is one of the poorest, densest and most populous cities in the world. The country imports 12% of all raw cotton for its textiles industry, which represents over 90% of its exports, making it the second-largest clothing exporter after China. It's a $29 billion industry, but for years, garment workers have only made about $0.35 an hour while multinationals like H&M, Walmart and Aldi take advantage of the country's dismally low minimum wage.

This flood of foreign business has overwhelmed the country, which lacks the infrastructure to meet demand. Working conditions have suffered as a result, and Bangladesh is now one of the worst countries in the world for worker rights. Poor infrastructure, including shoddy electrical work, and stores of fabric and chemical dyes, have also led to disasters such as the 2010 Dhaka fire, which killed 126 people, and the 2012 Dhaka fire, which killed up to 124 people. Then there was the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse, in which workers who evacuated a crumbling building in Dhaka were told to return to work the next day only to have it collapse, taking 1,134 lives. It was the deadliest building collapse in modern history.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvolod ... 7b61ff2ca1

[SolarCross]

You really like random ad hominems instead of arguments.

This is why it is easy to make socialism look good with you.

Here is capitalism:

Dhaka is one of the poorest, densest and most populous cities in the world. The country imports 12% of all raw cotton for its textiles industry, which represents over 90% of its exports, making it the second-largest clothing exporter after China. It's a $29 billion industry, but for years, garment workers have only made about $0.35 an hour while multinationals like H&M, Walmart and Aldi take advantage of the country's dismally low minimum wage.

This flood of foreign business has overwhelmed the country, which lacks the infrastructure to meet demand. Working conditions have suffered as a result, and Bangladesh is now one of the worst countries in the world for worker rights. Poor infrastructure, including shoddy electrical work, and stores of fabric and chemical dyes, have also led to disasters such as the 2010 Dhaka fire, which killed 126 people, and the 2012 Dhaka fire, which killed up to 124 people. Then there was the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse, in which workers who evacuated a crumbling building in Dhaka were told to return to work the next day only to have it collapse, taking 1,134 lives. It was the deadliest building collapse in modern history.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvolod ... 7b61ff2ca1

Why is that capitalism and not Switzerland? Or the UK, Japan or the US?

Bangladesh's problem is overpopulation not capitalism. If they had socialism they would all die of starvation.

[Pants-of-dog]

...some random text...

I already pointed out how sweatshops exist in NYC. Thank you for providing evidence that you never read it, or if you did, you either forgot it or did not understand it or are ignoring it.

Also, the headquarters for all these clothing companies are in Switzerland, or the UK, or Japan or other countries.

And the reason they export the work to Bangladesh is because Bangladesh has little or no environmental regulations or workplace safety regulations.

This lack of regulations is a capitalist ideal.

[SolarCross]

I already pointed out how sweatshops exist in NYC. Thank you for providing evidence that you never read it, or if you did, you either forgot it or did not understand it or are ignoring it.

Also, the headquarters for all these clothing companies are in Switzerland, or the UK, or Japan or other countries.

And the reason they export the work to Bangladesh is because Bangladesh has little or no environmental regulations or workplace safety regulations.

This lack of regulations is a capitalist ideal.

Well at least you admit that socialists would cure Bangladesh of its population boom by starving them all to death.

I suspect Bangladeshis would probably prefer having paying work over starving to death. Nobody likes working but starving to death is worse.

-------------------


^ Capitalism at its worst.




^ Socialism at its best.

[Pants-of-dog]

...a strawman and some ad hominems...

Your complete refusal or inability to argue is only supporting my argument.

Anyway, Bangladeshi workers would be better off with “socialist” policies like universal health care, safe working conditions, and other policies designed to help the working class.

[SolarCross]

Your complete refusal or inability to argue is only supporting my argument.

Anyway, Bangladeshi workers would be better off with “socialist” policies like universal health care, safe working conditions, and other policies designed to help the working class.

You don't have an argument, you just have a bunch of lying misanthropic agitprop.

You don't care about the "working class" because you would starve them all to death if you could.

You don't care about the gays because you would happily feed them all to muslim gay hanging parties.

You don't care about women or blacks or anyone. You just want to use them for your creepy inhuman agenda.

[Pants-of-dog]

....more ad hominems...

Since you have no argument, this debate is over.

You might think that ‘Made in Britain’ is a badge of honour when it comes to the label inside your clothes, but did you know that the conditions in some garment factories in the UK are as bad as those in many of the factories in the developing world?

Leicester, home to a third of the UK’s fashion manufacturing, has been the subject of ongoing investigations into unsafe conditions, blocked fire exits, and £3 per hour wages for the past three years since the Ethical Trading Initiative, which campaigns for workers’ rights around the globe, commissioned a report on clothing manufacturing in the area.

"People will be shocked, but it’s not exaggerating the reality of the situation,” says Debbie Coulter, Head of Programmes at the ETI. £3 per hour is an average wage, although she has spoken to women who were being paid as little as £1 per hour.

Apparently, there are sweatshops in the UK.

Capitalism!

[SolarCross]

Since you have no argument, this debate is over.

You might think that ‘Made in Britain’ is a badge of honour when it comes to the label inside your clothes, but did you know that the conditions in some garment factories in the UK are as bad as those in many of the factories in the developing world?

Leicester, home to a third of the UK’s fashion manufacturing, has been the subject of ongoing investigations into unsafe conditions, blocked fire exits, and £3 per hour wages for the past three years since the Ethical Trading Initiative, which campaigns for workers’ rights around the globe, commissioned a report on clothing manufacturing in the area.

"People will be shocked, but it’s not exaggerating the reality of the situation,” says Debbie Coulter, Head of Programmes at the ETI. £3 per hour is an average wage, although she has spoken to women who were being paid as little as £1 per hour.

Apparently, there are sweatshops in the UK.

Capitalism!

It isn't over because you say so, you are not the Great Dictator yet. You aren't even supposed to be in this debate as it was supposed to be just between @Agent Steel and myself. Count yourself lucky I paid you any attention at all.

[Pants-of-dog]

You probably would have done better if you had ignored me.

Then there would be only one example of you ignoring me and failing to support your claims, instead of several.

[SolarCross]

You probably would have done better if you had ignored me.

Then there would be only one example of you ignoring me and failing to support your claims, instead of several.

Well at least we established that you should be exiled to the DPRK.

[B0ycey]

Why is that capitalism and not Switzerland? Or the UK, Japan or the US?

Bangladesh's problem is overpopulation not capitalism. If they had socialism they would all die of starvation.

Capitalism exploits. So for there to be rich nations there has to be poor nations. If you want to focus on the positives of Capitalism look at those who gain from it. To see the negatives look at those who don't. Is that so hard for you?

[SolarCross]

Capitalism exploits. So for their to be rich nations there has to be poor nations. If you want to focus on the positives of Capitalism look at those who gain from it. To see the negatives look at those who don't. Is that so hard for you?

At this point I don't even believe that any of you actually believe in the shit you talk. It is just agitprop for some creepy inhuman agenda for the crushing subjugation of homo sapiens. It is all just lying. But I can pretend too so I'll engage with your pretend questions as if they were sincere.

So "capitalism" exploits? Firstly "capitalism" is just human beings who are not enslaved under socialists. Do humans exploit one another? Yes of course but trade is a mutual exploitation for mutual benefit. So trade is the least exploitative, in a bad sense, way for two or more humans to interact with each other because assuming free consent both parties are seeing more benefit from it than they are giving up to it. In contrast the slaving, stealing and murdering which socialists favour as an alternative to trade is an exploitation which is non-consensual and satisfies only the perpetrator and is wholly destructive to the subject of it.

Everybody gains from capitalism, just not equally. There is no conspiracy there, just pareto distributions. John Lennon died with something like £600 million to his name and made a name for himself that will probably still be on people's lips for hundreds of years to come. The vast majority of pop musicians however die as flat broke nameless nobodies whose names nobody ever remembered even while they were alive. Such is life.

In practice socalism isn't even any more equal for pareto distributions. Instead of John Lennon being freely given all the fame and fortune, you get criminal masterminds like Lenin or Kim Il Sung having a million 50ft statues built of them while everyone's else dies of starvation with names utterly forgotten.

Even if I am fated to be a nameless nobody I'd still rather be a free man in capitalism than a brutalised and starving subject of socialism. Do you really not understand that preference?