CreateDebate


Amarel's Waterfall RSS

This personal waterfall shows you all of Amarel's arguments, looking across every debate.
1 point

There will always be differences, what equality really means is that everyone has the same rights and opportunities.

Cool. So if I’m born in Kansas, will I have the same opportunity to become a mountain climber as someone in Idaho? Is my opportunity to be a merchant mariner the same as a person born on the coast?

Diversity means unequal opportunities.

1 point

The shoe will eventually be on the other foot. If Trump is going to increase the precedent for Presidential Monarchy, he better do it for the most dire of causes. Otherwise he is doing nothing but legitimizing the ability of future political opponents to enforce their executive will without regard to the people’s representatives.

1 point

I have legitimately studied Marxism, and you have not.

See what I mean about baseless assertions supported by fallacy? Yes I have. But I don’t need to sit here and tell you about it, that would be unsupportable. Our last debate, wherein I support my position by referring to Marx is evidence enough. None of it was out of context, which is why I was perfectly comfortable linking to Das Kapital itself. All we have from you is your word, which is completely worthless. Stating your own bona fides is completely irrelevant on an anonymous debate site. Nothing stands but the validity of your argument. Which is exactly why you have to rely on baseless assertions and claims of personal authority.

Amarel(4467) Clarified
1 point

You’re probably right. .

1 point

Just tell him you’re an authority on whatever you guys talk about. That should win it for you. If not, just tell him he isn’t as studied as you. Bet that will work.

Amarel(4467) Clarified
1 point

You would lose a debate to a talking sock with a drawn on face.

What the fuck? How do you know what I look like ?

1 point

Here let me write your reply for you.

"What's this? You don't want to refute the same fallacies over and over again?

Before you go. Quote even 1 fallacy that I have engaged in during this debate. Seriously. Should we make lists and compare them? Just one.

Amarel(4467) Clarified
1 point

I was going to ask that you not come into this debate with outside, unrelated topics, but we are obviously done here. Carry on.

1 point

I think the most disappointing part of all of this is not only that you engaged in mere assertions backed up by nothing but fallacies ("I'm the authority here"? Really?), but that you called yourself "Sherlock" while doing it.

In the end we do come to an agreement. This is becoming pointless. I will likely reference this debate in the future as illustrative of your most common deficiencies. It will also stand as a record for anyone on the site curious about what LT is and why it was debunked by MUT.

Have a good one.

1 point

"There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. Class means caste and caste means race."

Is this meant to show that Hitler did not believe in race, or that he applied Marxism to race instead of class?

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows—at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example—as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews."

Given he equated Jews with Capitalists, it's not really a quote in your favor. He might as well tell Germany they have nothing to lose but their chains.

if Hitler believed that race was the closest thing to class, and Hitler brutally suppressed people on the basis of race, thus creating a caste system based on race while claiming there is no such thing as class, how can he be a Marxist given that Marx wanted a society without class and believed that class struggle was the basis for all new socio-economic systems?

Elimination of the oppressive class is the quickest way to bring equality to the rest. After all, he did say "National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its absurd and artificial ties with a democratic order."

"Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and blind to grasp this, then I shall be compelled to come to an agreement with Russia, beat the West and then after their defeat turn against the Soviet Union with all my forces."

Tell me this means you recognize Russia as the failed attempt at Marx's Communism, the way the rest of us recognize it.

"The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation."

Nontheless, lets provide further explanation. Here is the whole quote from Mises:

"The fact that the capitalists and entrepreneurs, faced with the alternative of Communism or Nazism, chose the latter, does not require any further explanation. They preferred to live as shop managers under Hitler than to be “liquidated” as “bourgeois” by Stalin. Capitalists don’t like to be killed any more than other people do."

1 point

It's not that concepts don't exist, it's that they are a subjective reflection of physical neurochemistry and electricity in the brain.

More importantly, being a materialist is not some kind of preference against concepts or social constructs. Marx the materialist spent his life critiquing the social construct of the capitalist economy while formulating an advocating for a different social construct. To say he, like you, disliked social constructs is mere projection. A wish based on ignoring the evidence of his life’s work.

Marxism is scientific, it deals with social constructs and their relation to reality but it doesn't socially construct anything.

It doesn’t socially construct anything because it doesn’t work. But it does lay out an alternative social construct to the contemporary one.

But that's just the uneducated opinion of a porch economist who was taught to hate communists from a young age and has never actually read one of Marx's books.

If you ever wish to win a debate, or even present a reasoned argument, your going to have to set aside the fallacies along with your childhood toys. I have presented my case against Marx’s LT based first on what it is and second on why it is incorrect. I have relied on the works of Marx as well as common interpretations of his works to articulate what it is. Your only defense has been to say that Marx’s LT is other than what I said without any supporting evidence. You cannot reference Marx to show that I got it wrong because I reference Marx to show that I am right. That’s how you lost this one, on the strength of my argument vs the weakness of yours. That’s why you are left with nothing but baseless suppositions about my credibility while demanding to be called the authority on the matter. You clearly are not.

It's true that Communism was seen as the favorable outcome and that it's culmination is not an inevitability. But if you look at all the factors at play there are really only 4 options for the future.

1: RBE

2: Fascist Technocracy

3: Human Extinction

4: AI take over followed by human extinction.

Speaking of porch economists…I’m not really interested in the debunked ideas you’ve acquired from nobody cares. Your tastes have already been found lacking. You should focus on trying to supporting even one of your positions before you move on to another topic.

Value is like energy, everything has potential energy, but force is required to use that energy. Labour is the force that pushes value through the economy, and thus all the value that circulates in the economy depends on labour.

Re-asserting what I have already disproved is not an argument. To maintain this position you have to ignore the non-labor things of value, some of which I have articulated.

You have no idea what communism is. You are getting way ahead of yourself.

Getting ahead of you isn’t the same as getting ahead of myself. Re-read what I said. If you actually have read Kapital, re-read that since you missed some fundamental, points. Don’t come back until you can defend your position. That means you’ll have to actually use Marx to make your point, like I did.

1 point

Modernity has provided so much variety that genres seem less clear than they used to. Different artist who apparently share a genre are sometimes very different. I’ll give it a shot though:

1: Alternative/Alt Rock (Barnes Courtney, Imagine Dragons, Arctic Monkeys, Etc)

2: Folk /Folk rock (Jack Johnson, Norah Jones, Matt Costa,The Head and the Heart, etc)

3: Oldies (50’s, 60’s, 70’s, and 90’s)

4: Tie between Blues and Electro Swing (look it up, it’s pretty cool)

5: New Classical (Some movies have great scores for background and dinner music)

Amarel(4467) Clarified
1 point

You’d have hospitals be death traps. You know about the VA waiting lists and deaths right?

3 points

Then you will finally win. But you’ll still be factually incorrect.

Until you get your concentration camps, you’ll have to make due with insults in place of a compelling, reasoned position.

Amarel(4467) Clarified
1 point

I repeatedly invited you to my other debate on the matter to weigh in. You ignored multiple invitations. I wanted to put “won’t wven try” but it cut it off. Since neither of you have demonstrated any ability to defend LT, I went with Can’t”. If I could I would correct it to “FM can’t and Nom won’t even try.”

0 points

You fucking retard, if Marx was a materialist then why would he believe something that is not physical can be a part of objective reality?

Most materialists do not hold your view that concepts, and their effects don’t exist. They simply hold that social and conceptual phenomenon are fundamentally the product of neuro-chemical activity. That means subjectivity too. This is not a preference. It does not dissuade materialists from studying and formulating a vast array of conceptual and social frameworks. Seems you’re confused about more than just Marxism.

Marxism is a body of scientific theories, not something that he just made up. Marxism is about cause and effect, what causes social change? What causes value to enter the economy? The first is answered by dialectical and historical materialism, the second is answered by the labour theory of value.

Answered incorrectly as it turned out. But sure.

Communism is not a mere political arrangement invented by Marx, it is a prediction based on those theories among others. Marx predicted that humanity would reach a higher state of social order where society is both classless, scientific and democratic and the constructs and institutions of before are no longer necessary and are rendered obsolete.

Marxism is more than predictions based on theory. It’s incorrect predictions based in no small part on Marx’s personal hopes. He and Engels were always looking for the Revolution to occur. They pushed and encouraged and hoped. Their theories are more a justification for this hope than an exercise in empirical science. Any Marxists left have abandoned science altogether in favor of this lost hope.

Those things don’t have value in an economic sense, but they are things that can lead to the creation of value. You cannot buy or sell time or work ethic.

You are absolutely more marketable if you have a demonstrated history of good work ethic. Ask me how I know and I’ll ask you how you don’t.

Marginal Utility doesn't explain how value enters the economy.

Value doesn’t enter the economy. There is no human action, and thus no economy without value. Economic activity presupposes the existence of value.

It's based on value as a social construct with no relation to anything other than individual preference and social constructs within the market. LT is based on what objectively produces things which have subjective value.

You’ll notice I have explained Marx’s LT in Marx’s terms and MUT in MUT terms and demonstrated the validity of one as opposed to the other. You’re explaining both in your own incorrect terms and challenging one on the premises of the other. That approach doesn’t lead to valid or logically consistent conclusions.

MUT is based on subjective value, that’s true. But not value as a social construct, that’s not what value is according to MUT. Marx’s LT holds exchange value as subjective and wrong and use value as objective and right. Communism is an attempt to correct the supposed discrepancy.

Yes because labour produces that which has economic value. That doesn't mean value is objective, it means labour objectively produces that which has subjective value.

He didn’t believe that labor produced things of value, he believed labor literally made them valuable. Commodities are literally “masses of congealed labour time”.

without labour nothing of value would exist in the economy.

As I’ve explained, labor is a necessary aspect of the economy, but it is not sufficient. It is neither necessary nor sufficient for value.

You are literally cherry picking and misinterpreting excerpts while I have actually read an entire volume of it you jack ass.

I might believe you if you could “cherry pick” your own supporting evidence. Kicking and screaming that you are an authority won’t make it so. You’ve not demonstrated that you understand Marx’s LT. You don’t even speak in his terms but in reference to what I’ve already said.

My position is not a misrepresentation. The quotes and sources provide examples of the accuracy of my position.

You don't understand either, you are the universal equivalent of retardation.

Mere insult is commonly your final refuge after being thoroughly refuted.

Labour is what brings all value into the economy, even when it doesn't produce the value.

Nothing brings value into the economy. Value is already inextricable from the economy.

First of all physical labour is still required, for example mining or cutting down trees for raw materials. Intellectual labour is still labour as well.

As I’ve demonstrated, labor is not sufficient. In this case it is not even necessary as the raw material holds value prior to any labor adding more. Intellectual labor is not involved in opportunity costs, Time purchased, or contract Trust (resulting from threat of legal labor).

Marx’s LT simply does not have any empirical predictive power. MUT has almost all of it. This is why Marx’s theoretical application of his non-predictive theory gave him the ability to formulate exactly 0 successful models of communism. For it to be successful it would have to rely on an accurate theory, which would make it not communism.

1 point

Yes it does, it means you would rather deal with something solid and empirical than something conceptual or subjective.

Incorrect. Materialism is not a preference for matter, it’s the belief that all can be reduced to matter because nothing else exists. Your anti-conceptual preference is not a feature of materialism

The fact that Marx was a materialist does not conflict with the fact that his life’s work was in an effort to change some key social constructions into social constructs he found more preferable.

Ignoring what I say does not make me wrong.

It’s funny you should say that as you ignore my response which addressed what you said. Marx believes in value. Specifically he believed it was objective, ie beyond the social construction of capitalism. He formulated his notion of use value as contrasted with exchange value as a major feature of his critique. His economics absolutely apply to communism, wherein Marx conceived of use value being maintained by the workers who create it, rather than the capitalists who expropriate it.

Marx believed in value, and his ideas on value apply to communism.

Yes, it is determined by that. In order for a resource to become part of the economy labour must be done to acquire it from nature, and in order to increase the utility of raw materials labour must also be done to turn them into something else. Therefor all things of economic value are the result of labour

This is a statement affirming objective value in the form of labor. This is incorrect.

Time, good will, trust, competence, and ethic are a few things of economic value and require no labor.

Marginal Utility is based entirely on subjectivity and social constructs

Subjectivity yes, social constructs no. Marginal utility is based fundamentally on individual actions, which are necessarily subjective to the actor. Individual actions may or may not be made with regard to social constructs. Social constructs provide no basis for MUT.

value is entirely subjective and a social construct

A value is anything for which an organism would take action. That’s not a social construct. It is subjective, as I have said and as you have said. But Marx certainly didn’t think so.

Marx attempted to make value about resources and labour so that it would be based in something empirical and universal, thus shifting society out of subjectivity and social constructs and taking a step towards scientific methodology.

Not according to Marx is Das Kapital. Marx believed that labor literally was the objective “universal equivalent” which money was taking the place of.

Marx believed that the beorgiosie are stealing the fruits of working class labour. In order to help quantify this, Marx pointed out how labour produces everything of value in the economy.

That ignores what I said. He believed markets enabled people to steal objective value from others due to he nature of money. Marx believed that labor was the universal equivalent behind all exchange, but money was filling that role. There’s more to Marxist economics than simply the idea that capital ownership is theft.

You are not the expert here, I have studied Marxism.

Appealing to your own dubious authority will not win you this debate. Notice that I have provided sources, including Das Kapital, while you have provided only your incorrect opinion.

Communism itself is supposed to be scientific so primitive human constructs from the past don't apply

Human constructs always apply where humans are concerned. That’s one of the many flaws with Marxism.

Communism was essentially a rough draft of the RBE which is the system of a type one civilization.

I told you I didn’t need to study Fresco when I was already familiar with the origins of his recycled unoriginal notions. You seem to be content to misunderstand the original, so long as you have the recycled makeover.

It’s true that labor doesn’t determine the value of raw materials, as no labor has been put into them.

That’s another example of values requiring no labor. Add it to my list.

But for these materials to be viable to the economy labour must be done.

Their already viable, but I know what you mean. Labor must be done in addition to goal creating, planning, coordinating, bidding, purchasing time (a loan), and numerous other value added non-labor activities.

Therefore all things of value within an economy are provided by labour.

Not all things. Those things that do require labor require it in addition to other things of value.

If labour is not seen as the basis of value entering the economy then the rewards of labour can be stolen by those who produce nothing of value. If we accept that labour is what puts value into the economy then it is the value you produce which determines how much you should be rewarded by society.

Marx didn’t think that labor should be the source of all value, he believed it was. Labor neither is, nor should it be considered the source of value. The non-labor benefits accrued to me by society (mostly threat of penalty) is only one factor concerning the two parties of an exchange.

Marx did not believe value itself was objective, he believed that all the value which enters the economy objectively enters it through labour therefor labour and material properties should be considered the basis for value which attaches the subjective concept to something tangible.

I’ve provided sources, including Das Kapital, which disprove this incorrect opinion of yours. Your dubious authority notwithstanding.

most of your knowledge of the subject probably comes from PragerU videos or something.

Hypothesizing on my credentials won’t make your incorrect view of Marxism more credible, nor will it reduce my credibility as my position is supported by the facts of the matter. Have you considered providing sources? Probably not. Wouldn’t work as well for you.

Yep, and he was absolutely right.

No, he wasn’t. Money is not a stand I. For labor. Money is a standardized storage of value used as a means of exchange. Value, is what people will take action for. The action itself is not the value, not even when the action valued is labor.

0 points

This is incorrect. While not all activities actually produce commodities, there are a variety of activities that add value to the company and the consumer. Modern economies exemplify this fact and are not possible if the labor theory were correct.

The essence of economics is human action, not simply labor. Labor is one of many factors related to human valuation.

1 point

We'll see.

Empirical evidence is always based on what we have seen, not what we may see in the future if we wish upon a star and cross our fingers.

1 point

It's not a matter of "disproving" it, there are pros and cons to capitalism. Socialism is simply better when done properly.

Preference can’t be proven or disproven, but theories are weighed against empirical evidence. Empirical evidence supports marginal utility theory, which has substantial predictive power. Whereas Marx falls apart by comparison. People like to say it works in theory but not in practice. They only say that about debunked theories.

1 point

It would be better if it had disproven capitalist economic theory as it set out to do. But it failed. Marginal utility theory also came after capitalism, but it is accurate.

I responded to your post on the topic btw

1 point

How does it feel to be stuck in the past rather than shaping the future?

The Marginal Revolution occurred in the late 19th Century. Marx was just in time to be immediately outdated.

Amarel(4467) Clarified
0 points

If you didn't have whataboutism, you'd have NOTHING.. Dude.

There’s a flip side to this coin. If you didn’t have double standards, you wouldn’t care right now.

2 points

Agreed. What you said about women reminded me of a few other important benefits I neglected to mention. Capitalism brings about increased social equality. Hierarchies based on relatively arbitrary factors such as race and gender begin to fall away under the pressure of profit motive. Money doesn’t care what your color, creed, or biology is.

I also forgot to mention the peace that is fostered between trading partners. The globalization of relatively capitalist methods has brought us the greatest era of peace in human history. Increased trade is increased peace.


1 of 314 Pages: Next >>

Results Per Page: [12] [24] [48] [96]