CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
"State Capitalism" is a Socialist term. Here's why
When our local Commies try to correct your anti-communist
position by claiming all the failed commie states were actually capitalism,
specifically “state capitalism”, recognize the farce.
State Capitalism is a term used by leftists to obscure
socialistic failures. One need not look to far to see that even they recognize
that the term is not related to capitalism at all but rather is synonymous with
state socialism, the manifestation of the dictatorship of the Proletariat and
Marx's theoretical necessary precursor to the impossible Utopian goal that
never arises, ie Marxism.
The US is a state capitalist country. Notice the bailouts, subsidies, price supports and several govt.-run, single payer insurance programs added to countless billion$ in loan guarantees to corp. America.
China is the role model having gone to the next step from state capitalism to capitalist fascism.
I agree that bailouts passed the point of “true free market” and entered us into a new field of play. In true free market there is NO BAILOUT! You have the freedom to succeed or to fail
It certainly is and if we had the bearded boozer Marx here he would verify the veracity of the claim . The typical socialist throws about terms like confetti at a wedding hoping one will be accepted by the gullible and thus claim in a shrieking voice “ I’m right , you’re wrong “
Our commie friends change positions more times than a cheap hooker on a busy weekend .
The workers in such systems its claimed still had genuine control over the means of production through institutions such as trade unions , this is all under an article on State Socialism in wiki , it’s childishly simple but apparently a bridge to far for the resident commies .
Marx is like Nom in many way when a term referring to socialism from his own rants didn’t fit his narrritive he would claim the term wasn’t valid because in that case because the condition of the state he was describing was in transition
If one met a Socialist on the street and told him you owned a dog the socialist would ask not unreasonably “what type “ your reply “ a bulldog “ ......” that’s not a dog I own an Alsatian they are the only real dogs “
-“State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself”
-While State Capitalism is “ where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises”.
Wait a tick, if you think that sounds like the same thing, the Commies agree:
-Trotsky said State Capitalism “originally arose to designate the phenomena which arise when a bourgeois state takes direct charge of the means of transport or of industrial enterprises”.
- Lenin justified the introduction of state capitalism controlled politically by the dictatorship of the proletariat to further central control and develop the productive forces”
Now you will find plenty of leftist anarchists and communist apologists who will specifically refer to failed communist states as falling under state capitalism as opposed to communism. They might as well say they fell under the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than communism. But of course if they said that, it would undermine their profit. The point here is that “state capitalism” was a fabrication of the socialists designed for use much as it is here on this site. To obfuscate the failures of communism.
Since “state capitalism” is a socialists term, let’s ask the capitalists:
-“The term is not used by the classical liberals to describe the public ownership of the means of production”….wierd. That’s because the public ownership of the means of production is not capitalism at all.
-Capitalists don’t use the term because according to Mises “what used to be called Planned Economy and State Socialism, and that State Capitalism, Planned Economy, and State Socialism diverge only in non-essentials from the "classic" ideal of egalitarian Socialism”
“State socialism is a classification for any socialist political and economic perspective advocating state ownership of the means of production either as a temporary measure in the transition from capitalism to socialism, or as characteristic of socialism itself”
Hold on a second you disingenuous little cretin. I've never denied the existence of state socialism. You are the one pretending that state capitalism is really socialism.
Keep reading numbnuts. You'll get there. Literally the next line down.
The next line down is your personal condensing of a 10,000 word Wikipedia article to:-
State Capitalism is “ where the means of production are organized and managed as state-owned business enterprises”.
So essentially you've thrown the entire article away apart from one single line you cherry-picked out for your own use. That's hardly a neutral and unbiased thing to do, is it?
All the quotes are from the same article. I quoted the people who make my point, including capitalists and communists.
From now on, if you want to claim that communist failures were actually State Capitalism, you will have to contend with Liebknecht (they socialist who coined the term), Lenin, Trotsky, and Marx himself for his articulation of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Amarel, I honestly don't care that you obsessively quote mine. Your selection bias is every bit as astonishing and laughable as our resident master of double standards, brontoraptor. It isn't difficult to ignore contradictory information: it's just dishonest.
From now on, if you want to claim that communist failures were actually State Capitalism
No, that isn't how burden of proof works. From now on, if you want to accuse a country of being a "communist failure" then you must first prove it was Communist, because:-
People argue that the modern People's Republic of China constitutes a form of state capitalism[4][5][6][7] and/or that the Soviet Union failed in its goal to establish socialism, but rather established state capitalism.[3][8][9]
From now on, if you want to accuse a country of being a "communist failure" then you must first prove it was Communist
It's easy when they start off by saying they are Socialist (communism was very "out" for a while. Just another one of the many terms). They start by stating clearly that they are Socialists. They are hailed by other socialists around the world. They have some economic strong points to tout for a bit. Then they collapse. It's when they collapse that all the socialists say it was never actually socialism anyway. That's an easy burden of proof to overcome.
People argue that
Yes yes, people. People like you. People like FM. That's why I specifically referred people like Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and Mises. Don't you remember why you always lose the Marx debates? It's because I am actually willing to refer to Marx. But it's nice that "people" argue.
It's easy when they start off by saying they are Socialist (communism was very "out" for a while. Just another one of the many terms).
Do you not even realize that there has never been a communist country? Every country run by a legitimate communist party was actually in a primitive stage of socialism. They call themselves communists because communism is their goal, but the actual system that countries like the USSR had is called a socialist republic.
They start by stating clearly that they are Socialists. They are hailed by other socialists around the world. They have some economic strong points to tout for a bit. Then they collapse.
Many of the countries that were called socialist were actually socialist, many were not. Many started out with good intentions but turned out bad, many started out with bad intentions but claimed to be socialist because socialist rhetoric sounds very nice to a poor working class and convinces them to walk right into the jaws of fascism. And yes, believe it or not some of them even did socialism right, but indeed they all have collapsed. But you don't know why they collapsed, not because of socialism, but because capitalists hate socialism and marxism and do everything they can to sabotage it. There is not a single real socialist country that collapsed for any reason other than foreign influence or internal coup.
It's when they collapse that all the socialists say it was never actually socialism anyway. That's an easy burden of proof to overcome.
There were plenty real ones that collapsed, because of sanctions, invasions, internal sabotage etc. But never because socialism itself is the spawn of satan and will give you cancer.
Don't you remember why you always lose the Marx debates? It's because I am actually willing to refer to Marx.
Yes you love cherry picking things off the internet and claiming that people who have studied Marx directly and without a massive right wing bias are the ones who don't know Marx.
Do you not even realize that there has never been a communist country? Every country run by a legitimate communist party was actually in a primitive stage of socialism. They call themselves communists because communism is their goal, but the actual system that countries like the USSR had is called a socialist republic.
They all sound very confused , when they make their collective minds up they may tell the rest of the world what it’s all about as they seem to be making it up as they go along
Many of the countries that were called socialist were actually socialist, many were not. Many started out with good intentions but turned out bad, many started out with bad intentions but claimed to be socialist because socialist rhetoric sounds very nice to a poor working class and convinces them to walk right into the jaws of fascism.
Well best not pursue it then if that’s the end result
And yes, believe it or not some of them even did socialism right, but indeed they all have collapsed.
Yes , that’s the norm
But you don't know why they collapsed, not because of socialism, but because capitalists hate socialism and marxism and do everything they can to sabotage it.
Oh so that’s it ? So it can be not understanding it as you claim or turning it into fascism as you also claim or the fault if capitalist who are bent on destroying it .......You sound exactly like a Southern Baptist defending the Bible , get into religion son you’d make a fortune
There is not a single real socialist country that collapsed for any reason other than foreign influence or internal coup.
Yes , yes of course
There were plenty real ones that collapsed, because of sanctions, invasions, internal sabotage etc. But never because socialism itself is the spawn of satan and will give you cancer.
Never Socialism of course how could it be?
Yes you love cherry picking things off the internet
As opposed to you who pulls stuff out his ass
and claiming that people who have studied Marx directly
You need to get your Primer on Marxism course money back
and without a massive right wing bias are the ones who don't know Marx.
How typical when all else fails it has to be jolly old bias
Do you not even realize that there has never been a communist country?
Of course. But that's about like saying no one has vacationed in Heaven.
but the actual system that countries like the USSR had is called a socialist republic.
Yeah, they called themselves that too.
they all have collapsed. But you don't know why they collapsed, not because of socialism, but because capitalists hate socialism and marxism and do everything they can to sabotage it.
That's quite a theory. However, there are perfectly sound economic explanations.
Yes you love cherry picking things off the internet and claiming that people who have studied Marx directly and without a massive right wing bias are the ones who don't know Marx.
Well, if any of the self-proclaimed authorities on the matter could manage to "cherry pick" a few citations, that would help their cause.
Of course. But that's about like saying no one has vacationed in Heaven.
Heaven is pure fantasy, whereas Communism is based on a theory which was derived from empirical data.
Yeah, they called themselves that too.
It isn't complicated idiot, the USSR was a socialist republic, not Communism. If you understood the most fundamentally basic facts of Marx's work you would know the difference.
That's quite a theory. However, there are perfectly sound economic explanations.
Yes, like when capitalists puts sanctions on them, invade them or infiltrate their government.
Well, if any of the self-proclaimed authorities on the matter could manage to "cherry pick" a few citations, that would help their cause.
What you don't understand is that Marxism and Socialism are complex subjects that require a nuanced mind to understand, and you are literally repeating mindlessly things which go against the most fundamental elements of them. How do you expect me to try and explain this shit to you, knowing that you refuse to accept even the most basic facts about it? If you want to talk about Marxism and socialism you have to study it yourself, not watch right wing propaganda about it or quote mine on the internet.
Heaven is pure fantasy, whereas Communism is based on a theory which was derived from empirical data.
The empirical data supports the proposition that communist theory is based in fantasy. That's why it is Utopia. The best of what Marx wrote was already understood Classical Economics.
It isn't complicated idiot, the USSR was a socialist republic, not Communism.
No kidding. No one has ever achieved communism. It's impossible.
If you understood the most fundamentally basic facts of Marx's work you would know the difference.
I understand Marx's theory. Better than you by our more recent debates. That's why I know that his Communism is Utopian (even though he said it wasn't) which makes it inherently achievable. The groundwork Marx laid out that is achievable has been achieved repeatedly, with disastrous results every time.
Yes, like when capitalists puts sanctions on them, invade them or infiltrate their government.
Or trick them into wasting money on a fake moon landing etc...
you are literally repeating mindlessly things which go against the most fundamental elements of them.
Not only repeating, but supporting what I repeat with works like Das Kapital, The Communist Manifesto, and other analysis thereof. You should try supporting your own position sometime.
How do you expect me to try and explain this shit to you, knowing that you refuse to accept even the most basic facts about it?
You don't have to explain anything. You just have to provide some support for your positions. You've not done it once Marx was contradictory enough that support is out there. If you were the authority you wish upon a star to be, you might know that.
If you want to talk about Marxism and socialism you have to study it yourself, not watch right wing propaganda about it or quote mine on the internet.
I have. Making presumptions about anonymous strangers is a loosing strategy. I win these debates because I actually refer to Marx. You lose, in part, because you don't. Not even a little.
From now on, if you want to accuse a country of being a "communist failure" then you must first prove it was Communist, because
The people in power trying to advocate for Communism don't believe in any of your idealist views. You support them anyway for the provably failed version.
It seems strange that you would say this and then quote the exact same "leftists" when you want to evidence the existence of state socialism. So essentially, Wikipedia are "leftists" when they are describing state capitalism but a legitimate and neutral source when describing state socialism, yes?
Do you even listen to yourself buddy? You're insane.
No. Wikipedia is the source I used which quoted leftists, communists, capitalists...all of them. Wikipedia shows that it was coined and primarily used by Socialists while Capitalists such as Mises refused to use yet another name for the same old shit.