- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
American capitalism was founded on the back of a violent revolution
Learn some history.
The American Revolution did not happen until 1775, and was not over until 1783.
Free Market Capitalism in the American colonies, particularly New England, is easily traceable to early in the 18th century, and arguably was in place well before that.
For example, the development of mechanized textile mills in New England dates to the early 1730s, and was the result of capitalism and the free market.
The mills were the result of a cycle of capital investment, reinvestment profits by private owners (from previous textile manufacture and sale) used to build the larger facilities and take advantage of economies of scale. The implementation of technological developments was the result of the need to compete with other producers, and that implementation was made possible by the reinvestment of profits.
None of this process of reinvestment of profits to develop businesses was designed, regulated, or mandated by any governmental institution.
The violent revolution did not start until a half century after this process was well underway.
So, yes, your statement was clearly erroneous.
It was Lenin who led the Bolshevik Revolution, not Marx.
Nobody said otherwise.
The fact that Lenin implemented a system based on the naïve fantasy of a de facto child is not Marx's fault, but Lenin's.
The fact that the system devolved automatically into brutality and oppression was predictable based on the human drive to compete and climb hierarchies.
While that [requirement of dictatorships to implement the system] is true it applies equally to capitalism and every other system which has ever been tried.
Modern free market capitalism was not implemented by dictatorships, but rather arose in republics (e.g., the US) and parliamentary monarchies (e.g., Great Britain) without any government plan or push to implement it.
While some dictatorships have arisen in capitalist societies, the economic system preexisted the dictatorship (e.g., Peron in Argentina.)
This [Human beings have an overwhelming tendency toward competitive tribal organizations and hierarchies.] is egregious bullshit.
Name one non-hierarchical society.
Name one society that does not divide (or has not divided) into classes, castes, ranks, or into competing groups like political parties, factions, tribes, clans, companies, competing families, etc.
It's the same as saying humans have an "overwhelming tendency" toward wanting to serve other humans.
You leapt from "humans compete (and often try to control) others" to humans want to lose and serve/be controlled. A tendency toward the one in no way implies a tendency toward the other.
In fact the competition seems to be as much about trying to avoid being at the bottom of the hierarchy (controlled) as it is about trying to move toward the top (have control.)
It is possibly less about power over other people (as an end in itself) than it is about being closer to the front of the line (metaphorically speaking) in order to have access to more resources, and surer access to resources.
You have leaped from your erroneous conclusion that humans want to serve other humans to the further conclusion that this desire is genetic.
- 1 - As I just pointed out, my conclusion was not that humans want to serve. A tendency toward hierarchies and competition in no way suggests or even relates to a desire to serve.
- 2 - I made no claim about the cause of the tendency toward hierarchies and competition.
While it very well may be genetic (the dominance hierarchy is near-universal in social animals), I know of no identified genes shown to have a causal, or even correlative link to this drive. There could be other causes like universal aspects of culture, though I make no claims about that either.
Whatever the cause, the phenomenon clearly exists.
At any rate, neither was actually communist. Russia was theoretically Marxist, though they didn't truly embody that, either.
I disagree. The quibbling will follow.
Realistically, political systems matter much more, and they were both, on some level, dictatorships.
Of course they were dictatorships. How else do you think the systems could be implemented.
Human beings have an overwhelming tendency toward competitive tribal organizations and hierarchies. This is why communism develops and looks the way it does, and why Nazi Germany looked the way it did.
Regarding the USSR:
It turns out that hierarchical territorial herd animals cannot actually live any other way than hierarchically.
It also turns out that there is no functional difference in the real world between the following three statements.
--Everybody owns everything.
--Nobody owns anything.
--They head administrator owns everything.
Likewise, it seems territorial animals cannot actually be induced to give away ownership without the encouragement of secret police and gulags?
The Soviet Union was as communist as is possible with human beings. Many leftists like to insist that it was not 'real' communism, because they like to think that the Marxist-Leninist ideal is possible. The USSR was the most real version of nation-level communism possible.
The problem is that in terms of what people actually are, and how people actually behave in groups, the USSR is what communism actually is once it is implemented in the real world.
This is what happens when a guy who never had a job writes a manifesto about the interplay of labor and economics. He fails to understand what the relationships are because he has no direct experience of any of these relationships.
The real alienation of labor was the great divide between Karl Marx and a job or any other productive activity.
Karl was always a child, supported first by his parents, and later by Engels. The Communist Manifesto was just a child's daydream.
Regarding National Socialist Germany:
Hitler never wanted communism. He may not even have particularly cared about socialism as an end.
However, Adolf sure used the hell out of it as a means.
Hitler used socialism as the bait to induce the Germans to give up their independence. Once people are dependent on the state, they tend to get complacent, and then are willing to abandon baggage like books and guns and freedom and justice, just so they can stay on the gravy train.
Jews and Gypsies and handicapped people are not nearly so important to most people as jobs and food and Volkswagens and vacations. Again, it has to do with what people really are.
Once some Germans got on board, it was easy to pull most of the rest in. We're herd animals.
I found a site (link below) that said the following are good sources of vitamin F:
- - Grape seed oil
- - Almonds
- - Peanuts
- - Avocados
- - Spirulina
- - Sprouts
- - Wheat germ
- - Flaxseed Oil
- - Oils of grains, nuts and seeds, such as soybean, walnuts, sesame, and sunflower
Wikipedia has a good article on Vitamin K-2, that discusses the make-up/types and what food sources have which types.
The non animal sources are:
- - Sauerkraut
- - Buckwheat Bread
- - Chocolate
There are a lot of dairy sources.
And of course, there is meat.
The fact is that for both Vitamins F and K-2, you do best to eat some animal products. The healthiest diets include some meat. We evolved as omnivores, which is why we have the teeth, intestines, and pancreas we do.
Name-dropping vague terminology like "pun", or "denotation"
If you think pun and denotation are vague, then I radically overestimated your understanding of the English language. These are VERY basic terms used when discussing language. American schools teach these terms in 2nd or 3rd grade, and 5th or 6th grade respectively. We teach them precisely because they are not vague, and because they enable discussion of how context affects meaning.
Everybody is perfectly clear about what offence and defence mean in the context they are being used except you.
There is a difference between offense as a strategy and offense as a tactic.
Offense is one possible tactic in the strategy of defense. Is that simple enough for you.
You disproved your own contention that you were joking when you wrote me a 3,000 word essay defending the argument
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Try the arithmetic again.
Exaggeration is part of your problem. I think that is part of why you have these emotional outbursts that result in name-calling.
The only things I paste are dictionary definitions.
The dictionary confirms that offence and defence are diametrically opposed terms
Not always. Often they are complementary terms. This is different than being opposites. In another post on the other side I addressed the difference in usage. Go read it again, if you like.
I explained clearly the flaw in your source, yet you repeatedly cite it, as if that does anything but support my point about you needing to learn English to a greater depth.
I genuinely don't understand what you believe you gain from doing this.
One of your problems seems to be that you demonstrably do not understand a lot of what you disagree with. That is probably why such a high percentage of your "rebuttals" start or end with insults, and often have them sprinkled throughout. You routinely mistake your inability to understand as a problem with the idea you think you disagree with, or with the person you then proceed to attack.
This brings us to one of your other problems. It must be very frustrating to be so lost all the time, especially considering that in this on-line manifestation, your social skills are sorely undeveloped.
Your rudeness indicates that even when you are trying to engage with other people's ideas, you completely misunderstand how to engage with people you disagree with on any level higher than that of a child. This is the cost of resorting to insults.
Your insults generally come out as some version or other of "I disagree, so you are a dumb-dumb poo-poo head!" Sure, the vocabulary of your insults is a little higher, but the maturity of the sentiment is exactly that childish. That is why I am so surprised to learn that you have a degree. I always assumed you were somewhere between 12 and 16 years old, not because of your ideas, but because of your manners.
Regarding what I gain from doing this, I am just trying to help you get better at this. All the knowledge you have takes a back seat to your poverty of manners and your poor understanding of the English language, or how to use it to your advantage.
I at least hope to see your insults improve. I was kind of proud of you for using "farcical."
Improvement happens in baby steps.
you seem to be saying that the same word, for example, "offense", has different definitions within the same context of your sentence. This of course is nonsensical and false, because the definition of words with multiple definitions is always relevant to context.
What you are failing to understand is what a pun is.
Yeah, it is basic humor, but I was using it to point out that you failed in an earlier statement to appreciate that offense and defense have multiple meanings, most of which prohibit them from being antonyms.