[B0ycey]

It isn't even a difficult thing to understand @SolarCross, yet here you are struggling to even debate PoD by the points he makes and instead you ignore him in order to rant about past dictatorships who were/are faux socialists and John Lennon.

Nonetheless currency is an IOU so to have pocession of it means someone or something must lose out. Although land ownership itself exploits non land ownership and so do the owners of production to those who work for them. If you have to work to earn a wage in order to survive you do so not by choice but by necessity BTW. A point made very well by @Stardust on page one and yet another time you couldn't successfully refute the point made towards you. Although your ideas of socialism isn't even really socialism at all but totalitarianism. The idea of collective ownership in the form of state ownership eliminates exploitation as you gain from the state by working for it and sharing the fruits of everyones labor at the same time. There is no debt as there is no profit. And the system can indee work efficently as every other social creature basically abides by socialism in their natural habitat without starving to death FYI.

[SolarCross]

@B0ycey
You are as much a deceiver as @Pants-of-dog. I didn't "struggle" at all. And you avoid my question.. Why should I give up my freedom to you?

[B0ycey]

@B0ycey
You are as much a deceiver as @Pants-of-dog. I didn't "struggle" at all. And you avoid my question.. Why should I give up my freedom to you?

And what freedom have I asked you to give up?

I merely pointed out to you of your confusion as I am sure you didn't read those definitions you published. Although I think the murder rate of the capitalist West is quite high. And so is their exploitation. So why you think this is something that is not prevalent in capitalism and something you think you can use to discredit socialism as an argument is baffling to me as a reader of your posts.

Nonetheless I think I have said a few times now on PoFo that I am a Centrist as I am aware of the weakness of socialism.

[Agent Steel]

Like he said, the debate is over between you two, lol.

SolarCross, tell me why you think socialists are contemptible?

[Pants-of-dog]

Another example of slavery in the capitalist world is prison labour.

Private prisons routinely use prisoners for labour, regardless of the consent of the prisoner, and pay them less than minimum wage.

All perfectly legal. All perfectly profitable.

[SolarCross]

And what freedom have I asked you to give up?

I merely pointed out to you of your confusion as I am sure you didn't read those definitions you published. Although I think the murder rate of the capitalist West is quite high. And so is their exploitation. So why you think this is something that is not prevalent in capitalism and something you think you can use to discredit socialism as an argument is baffling to me as a reader of your posts.

Nonetheless I think I have said a few times now on PoFo that I am a Centrist as I am aware of the weakness of socialism.

If you side with socialists you aim for a society where I am denied the right to own property, make my own choices or engage in any significant activity independently of the arbitrary dictates of an overclass of ideologcial crazies. All of that is a crushing loss of freedom. It is hard not to take that personally, certainly it makes us enemies.

I don't believe you are a genuine centrist. Define your "centrism". Socialists often pretend they are something they are not. I don't believe anything they say anymore.

[B0ycey]

If you side with socialists you aim for a society where I am denied the right to own property, make my own choices or engage in any significant activity independently of the arbitrary dictates of an overclass of ideologcial crazies. All of that is a crushing loss of freedom. It is hard not to take that personally, certainly it makes us enemies.

I don't believe you are a genuine centrist. Define your "centrism". Socialists often pretend they are something they are not. I don't believe anything they say anymore.

Who is better at knowing my own personal ideology? You or I?

I hold moderate views SC as most Centrlists do. I believe in democracy and support a libertarian economic model with a free market on most things - as this encourages enterprise and innovation, privatisation on essential things such as housing, transport, health, schooling etc., taxing high wealth and supporting people in proverty with tax credits. Nonetheless I would love to eliminate land ownership - although as this is unpractical until Capitalism falls is a belief I am willing to withhold whilst welfare exists to some extent.

Not that my ideology matters for this quote. I was only pointing out your hypocrisy and not really making any preference to which economic model I prefer when quoting you. You talk as if murder and exploitation is unique to Socialism when it is in fact prevalent in Capitalism. The only definition of socialism that you should be considering is the state controlling the means of production and the elimination of private property. And as you don't argue this point at all and ignore your own definitions to instead harp on about starvation and John Lennon, you can see why you are not very good at arguing against socialism.

As for your freedom, you are free to do what you like. Buy a house, do whatever activities you like, I don't care. But if a socialist party is democratically elected and removes the existence of land ownership and returns it to the state for society to share instead remember democracy is a freedom too and the choice of the majority and their freedoms must also be respected just like yours.

Nonetheless perhaps you should stick to debating AS. He is waiting for your reply and you are currently debating whether you personally can live without a society - you know the stuff that matters

[SolarCross]

@B0ycey So you are probably some kind of fabian then: a socialist in human clothing.

"Worker co-ops" and "consumer co-ops" still well within capitalism. They are privately owned and operated just as much as a plc or ltd. They are not usually formed by stealing someone else's stuff either so they are not properly "collectivist". The hard left has nothing but contempt for co-ops exactly because it is "capitalism".

----------

@Agent Steel
I already kind of indicated why I hate socialists when I said it was the lying the gets me. I don't even mind the murders and stealing so much assuming it is happening to someone else. Obviously when they come for me that will be different.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you side with socialists you aim for a society where I am denied the right to own property,

This is factually incorrect.

Socialism has no problem with personal property. You are simply not allowed to own capital and use that as economic leverage to exploit others.

make my own choices or engage in any significant activity independently of the arbitrary dictates of an overclass of ideologcial crazies. All of that is a crushing loss of freedom.

Again, socialism is not inherently authoritarian. For you to consistently define it as such despite offering a definition where that is not included is intellectually dishonest.

It is hard not to take that personally, certainly it makes us enemies.

Your feelings about imaginary persecution are not an argument.

I don't believe you are a genuine centrist. Define your "centrism". Socialists often pretend they are something they are not. I don't believe anything they say anymore.

Then you should leave the thread, as you are refusing to debate.

[SolarCross]

This is factually incorrect.

Socialism has no problem with personal property. You are simply not allowed to own capital and use that as economic leverage to exploit others.

Define personal property. Define Capital. Define economic leverage. Define exploitation. Just so I know what you are talking about.

Again, socialism is not inherently authoritarian. For you to consistently define it as such despite offering a definition where that is not included is intellectually dishonest.

So far it has been. Moreover if you want to steal everything you can hardly do that without exceedingly authoritarian methods. I wonder what kind of hippy dippy socialism you have in mind? Perhaps this new improved socialism is worth hearing about instead of being kept a secret. Do tell.

Your feelings about imaginary persecution are not an argument.

It won't be imaginary if you ever get off a coup d'etat in my country. You said it yourself that you would exile me (no doubt after robbing me down to the clothes on my back). Most socialists wouldn't even let me leave, you are being relatively generous compared with your fellow fundies (assuming I believed you which I don't).

Then you should leave the thread, as you are refusing to debate.

That's a blatant lie I have been debating from the beginning even taking on three of you loonies at once. Expressing my disbelief in your honesty is not refusing debate. Nice of you to prove yourself a liar again, so thanks for that.

[Pants-of-dog]

Define personal property.

You would know this as private property, but I am also distinguishing the property you have for your own personal needs, and those assets you are using to own the means of production or are means of production themselves.

Define Capital. Define economic leverage. Define exploitation. Just so I know what you are talking about.

I am using the normal and accepted definitions. In fact, I already defined exploitation, and you replied to that post, so this is sealioning.

So far it has been.

This is factually inaccurate and we have already discussed historical examples that disprove the claim that all socialist governments are authoritarian.

To continue to assert this after these examples have been discussed is intellectually dishonest.

Moreover if you want to steal everything you can hardly do that without exceedingly authoritarian methods. I wonder what kind of hippy dippy socialism you have in mind? Perhaps this new improved socialism is worth hearing about instead of being kept a secret. Do tell.

Democratic socialism is the obvious example.

..more ad hominems....

If you are asserting that everything we are saying is a lie, you are claiming that our claims are all wrong and incorrect and we are also bad people.

This is not only an ad hominem, but a blatant refusal to even entertain the arguments of your opponents. Hence, you are not debating.

[SolarCross]

You would know this as private property, but I am also distinguishing the property you have for your own personal needs, and those assets you are using to own the means of production or are means of production themselves.

The standard definitions of: private property is property not owned by the government, it usually refers to real estate, land or buildings. Personal property is property that is "movable" so clothing, furniture, money etc and is used to distinguish things which are not real estate. In normal society there is nothing especially loathsome about the "means of production".

I am using the normal and accepted definitions. In fact, I already defined exploitation, and you replied to that post, so this is sealioning.

Capital is property or wealth, it is derived from the latin "caput" meaning head as in heads of cattle, so cows are the original wealth. So you want to take people's cows away? Well it would help make them poor and starving since that is what you are into.

"Exploitation" means "make use of" but usually with a negative connotation which is inappropriate for describing trades.

This is factually inaccurate and we have already discussed historical examples that disprove the claim that all socialist governments are authoritarian.

To continue to assert this after these examples have been discussed is intellectually dishonest.

No, really all socialist governments to date have been murderous, thieving and crazy. There is a pattern there, it isn't a coincidence.

Democratic socialism is the obvious example.

Well democratic socialism is a two-faced beast one face is all smiles and butterflies and the other is the demon mask. They say "free stuff!" then they go looting. "Democratic" socialism is like the fabian logo, a wolf in a sheep's corpse.

If you are asserting that everything we are saying is a lie, you are claiming that our claims are all wrong and incorrect and we are also bad people.

This is not only an ad hominem, but a blatant refusal to even entertain the arguments of your opponents. Hence, you are not debating.

Yes I believe that, aside from the witless dupes, serious socialists to be actively malevolent towards my species homo sapiens and that lying is part of their MO. It is clear that you know very well that you are being dishonest and you do it anyway, it is not just an accident. As an example you are being dishonest by saying I am not debating when I have been debating all along and that pointing out lying is in no way an absence of debating especially when it being done in the course of a debate.

[Pants-of-dog]

The standard definitions of: private property is property not owned by the government, it usually refers to real estate, land or buildings. Personal property is property that is "movable" so clothing, furniture, money etc and is used to distinguish things which are not real estate. In normal society there is nothing especially loathsome about the "means of production".

Capital is property or wealth, it is derived from the latin "caput" meaning head as in heads of cattle, so cows are the original wealth. So you want to take people's cows away? Well it would help make them poor and starving since that is what you are into.

"Exploitation" means "make use of" but usually with a negative connotation which is inappropriate for describing trades.

Sure.

Anyway, socialists have no interest in your personal property, so your claim that they would want to control it is incorrect.

...more ad hominems...

No, and if you keep saying this, all you are demonstrating is your inability or unwillingness to learn.

...more crap...

Whatever, anyway, democratic socialism disproves your incorrect assertion that all forms of socialism are anti-democratic.

I find this an odd criticism from someone who supports dictatorships.

...more crap...

Your opinion of me and others is immaterial.

[SolarCross]

Sure.
Anyway, socialists have no interest in your personal property, so your claim that they would want to control it is incorrect.

If you steal my tools of trade that is arguably worse than stealing my books or CDs. I really don't see how that is meant to reassure me. Point of fact anyone stealing tools out of vans is probably just as a happy burgling houses for jewelry or consumer electronics.

No, and if you keep saying this, all you are demonstrating is your inability or unwillingness to learn.

No I am demonstrating my unwillingness to be deceived by enemies.

Whatever, anyway, democratic socialism disproves your incorrect assertion that all forms of socialism are anti-democratic.

I find this an odd criticism from someone who supports dictatorships.

My meaning is that socialism is always malevolent against humans, democracy can be corrupted to that purpose but it is easier to do that with a one party autocracy instead hence why socialists always try to get rid of democracy once it has gotten them into power. That is just something to be aware of if anything socialist appears on the ballot.

Your opinion of me and others is immaterial.

Your opinion is worthless.

[Pants-of-dog]

...more ad hominems...

As long as we are clear that your tools are your personal property and socialists do not care about them.

No I am demonstrating my unwillingness to be deceived by enemies.

It is a historical fact that some socialist governments were democratic and not authoritarian.

You may ignore this as “lies” or not.

...more ad hominems...

Your opinion is worthless.

Yes, opinions are worthless when involved in rational debate.

[SolarCross]

As long as we are clear that your tools are your personal property and socialists do not care about them.

Until I try to earn some money with them, lol. Are you going to redefine "means of production" to mean literally nothing at all?

It is a historical fact that some socialist governments were democratic and not authoritarian.

You may ignore this as “lies” or not.

The only one I can think of was Hitler's Nazis and look how that turned out.

[Pants-of-dog]

Until I try to earn some money with them, lol. Are you going to redefine "means of production" to mean literally nothing at all?

Actually, it seems like you are intentionally redefining it so that you can play the victim of some imaginary exploitation.

The only one I can think of was Hitler's Nazis and look how that turned out.

Your lack of knowledge or memory is not an argument.

[SolarCross]

Actually, it seems like you are intentionally redefining it so that you can play the victim of some imaginary exploitation.

What is your definition of "means of production"? Because if we just take the words as they mean literally then even a comb is a "means of production". And before you say "factories" like that will make everything alright a factory is just building full of tools and you said before you wouldn't take people's tools or their buildings.

Why did Lenin steal the tools and buildings of the kulaks?

[Pants-of-dog]

Please refer to my previous post.

Because of this paradigm of yours, further debate is useless, since you will simply whine about how you are persecuted in your imagination instead of addressing actual points.

[SolarCross]

Please refer to my previous post.

Because of this paradigm of yours, further debate is useless, since you will simply whine about how you are persecuted in your imagination instead of addressing actual points.

SO THERE IT IS! A COMPLETE RETREAT FROM DEFINING THE "MEANS OF PRODUCTION".

Okay you run away but we see you running and know what that means.