CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Identify Ally
Declare Enemy
Challenge to a Debate
Report This User

Allies
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic


Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic


RSS SeanB

Reward Points:339
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
92%
Arguments:409
Debates:0
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

So none of the communistic or socialistic societies that existed (and there have been many) were sufficiently exemplary of your ideal conception of communism or socialism? That's interesting because I'd say the same about capitalistic societies, yet they seem to have gone significantly less wrong than the attempts at communism and socialism.

This is partly what is wrong with the Western education system. Capitalist culture suffers from a dire case of confirmation bias. Firstly, socialism and communism aren't equatable. Many socialistic countries today -- if we are to take average living standards, scarcity of crime, freedom of expression and lack of poverty as our measures -- do far, far better than the American bastion of capitalism. Explain that to me.

Second, while it is true that Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, and PolPot's Cambodia, to name a few, were brutal dictatorships, you would need to completely redefine the word communism to try to stick that label onto those dictatorships.

Communism is literally the exact opposite of a despotism that witholds all wealth for the despot.

As for capitalism working significantly less violently, that's only if you leave out the hundreds of millions of people who have been killed directly and indirectly through attempts to export the practice. The British Empire did it, the Americans did it, the French did it, the Portuguese did it.

Capitalism is every bit as dirty and dangerous as Stalinism was.

Unless you want to own property or innovate a new industry, in which case it takes your self-determination in these regards.

Stalinism would. A Marxist communism would not. We would be educated to strive to the common benefit rather than the personal. It is, contrary to belief, quite natural for humans -- well educated and with nurtured morality -- to care just as much about others' wellbeing as their own.

As for a society that is bottom-up, how, practically speaking, would this be implemented?

With time, effort and a long and arduous struggle.

You're talking exclusively about the financial aspect of empowering the individual. I can agree that there are advantages conferred by money and connections (which were worked for by the individuals' ancestors by the way). The fact of the matter is that if you study and get a good career you will earn more money than you could ever need.

This is naive. Tell this to Indian slum children.

So you're saying that in general the means of production and distribution would be privately owned and controlled?

Not at all. The means of production would be communally owned.

This seems to be in contrast with Marx's views. Though you also seem to be saying that everything would be publicly owned and controlled: "anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage."

Not at all. Only things that are usurped from many for the benefit of few.

As for power stations and railways, these were created by private individuals and groups using their time and resources. You will need to rob these people of their possessions with the threat of force.

I don't care who built and owns the railways. Many people worked to build these infrastructure, probably for pittance. They're nationally important and I would have no issue taking them from individual privateers. Capitalism takes far more from the many and gives it to the few. We would just be balancing the books.

Yet such centralized control always seems to lead to abuses of power, for instance in the violent suppression of dissent in communist and socialist societies. Also, there seems to be a theme of needing to violently force people to work, since there is no other incentive to do so.

You're still struggling with definitions. Marxist communist theory isn't about despotism and centralised power. It's about evenly dispersed power.

As for the "force to work" garbage, Stalinism isn't communism. China's state oligarchy isn't communism. Those people in those countries didn't get welfare cheques every month. Their incentive to work wasn't nullified by comfort lol. They had to work because their leaders were tyrannical despots that stripped them all of everything. Stalin didn't nationalize the infrastructure and give control over it to the people: he seized the infrastructure and dictated every which way it would be used, regardless of the people.

There's a huge difference.

So you want a communism that is organized by direct democracy? That sounds grossly inefficient, imagine having to vote on every single aspect of society and industry on a regular basis. After all, that is the only manner in which "the majority are the powerful".

Right now, I'd settle for just having a vote on issues of pressing importance. Maybe like whether we ought to go into wars in countries most Westerners can't even point out on a map, or whether it's okay for education to cost our kids an arm and a leg, or maybe allow people to decide whether spending more money on bullets and bombs than on the nurturing of young minds is a wise financial decision.

In all the ways that matter, we already live under a tyranny.

1 point

You are so stupid.

First, I will begin by delineating a premise. While arguments for atheism substantiate the most evidence, theism is, unlike atheism, predicated on a consistent principle-based approach to reasoning, whereas atheism cannot formulate a consistent definition of reasoning without looking to subjective presuppositions about the nature of reasoning.

All reasoning is subjective. Humans arbitrate reasoning. All evidence points to this. There is no evidence to the contrary.

In fact, atheism presupposes that truth can be reasoned despite believing that evolution is arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival. The reason for why I believe this is a fallacy is due to the fact that truth is only arbitrarily determined by whether or not a select trait is conducive to survival.

It isn't arbitrarily determined. Biochemistry naturally makes complex molecules.

You are just rambling bullshit. All of it.

1 point

I don't agree with this, communism and socialism have both been tried and they always result in millions dead (hundreds of millions with communism).

Neither have been tried. Stalinism was dictatorial. In Stalin's Russia, value was not redefined as Marx wrote that it would need to be. In Stalin's Russia, the commoner did not direct through democratic process the product, amenities and infrastructure of the nation. Communism has not existed on Earth. There have been only dictatorships, which have hijacked the label of communism in pursuit of feudalistic agendas. Feudalism -- if you had read any Marx, you would know -- is the very first crux of oppression that Marx and Engels tackle in their Manifesto.

I personally think the path to progress that we have staked out is one of greater individual rights and self determination.

Socialism and communism (as Marx writes) are about self determination. Whereas oligarchy, feudalism, presidency and monarchy offer centralized power to a select individual or several individuals, Marxism offers a society that is bottom-up, not top-down.

This is shown in your examples of progress, it's always about empowering the individual insofar as is possible, not imposing collectivism.

Empowering the individual. This is a soundbite for capitalism. All it really means is, empowering those with might -- monetary, familial or otherwise -- against the majority.

The right to private property is one of the rights that we the citizenry had to fight for against our rulers.

Marxism doesn't demand that people give up property. Only that excessive proprietary holdings that by virtue of their private ownership diminish the utility of the working class, be surrendered to the public body: this is your railways, your oil wells, your mines, your power stations, your roads: anything by which individuals oppress upon the self-evident interest of the many to support the needs of the many, for their own personal advantage.

Under the centralized control of communism and socialism the people aren't even free to dissent, let alone own private property.

In capitalist society, dissent is only as effective as far as it aligns with the individualist paradigm. In Marx's writings, he explicitly goes against any form of censorship of dissent, because censorship is a tool that has always been used to oppress the lowest rungs of society. A society that gives a voice to the many, benefits the many. A society in which what can be said and not said is dictated by the few, is not a free society.

For someone so skeptical of the powerful, I find it interesting that you would want a group to have control over the entire economy and the distribution of wealth.

When that group is the majority, then the majority are the powerful: that's what democracy was SUPPOSED to be.

1 point

its against nature, as simple as that.

More than 1,500 species (and research has barely begun) have been shown to display homosexuality. Nature, it seems, doesn't agree with you.

whats so bad about having abortion?

This is a different issue, and ought to be debated within its own context. There is no correlation between abortion and homosexuality.

or whats so bad about hitting a kid?

Again, no correlation. You're just listing things you think are bad and then trying to tell us that if we allow homosexuality, we risk allowing all these things, too.

NEWSFLASH: These other things already happen. There are plenty of gay folks who think abortion is a bad thing. There are plenty of gay folks who believe that hitting kids is immoral.

If you don't support discrimination against gay people, then why are you trying to vilify by placing it in the same class as abortion or child abuse? That right there is a helluva justification for discrimination against gay people in the first place.

Natural laws of procreation

Nature is nature. Whatever exists living in the world, is PART of nature. That includes homosexual humans and buggering bonobos.

a mother is needed by the child foremost

Not a mother, a caregiver. That caregiver doesn't even have to be female. There are plenty of single dads out there.

1 point

I didn't say my employees income, you fucking nincompoop. I said my income. Money that goes to people who need it, is not wasted. A platform for debate that gets used by an idiot like you, is, however, wasted.

What is your IQ anyway?

1 point

Without limit. God-like.

Time is a constraint, it is a limitation. Without limit necessarily means what, then?

1 point

If I were extremely wealthy, I would be quite happy to pay 50% or 60% or 70% of my income in taxes, if it meant the people in my country didn't have to suffer for basic human necessities. I pay 20 - 40% tax in the UK, on a modest wage, and I get student loan deductions taken from that as well. Meanwhile, multi-billion dollar corporations and rich conservative politicians bypass tax laws and end up paying nothing: then they hark on about the "benefits bill" and the "welfare state" as if it is the reason why poor people are poor.

Poor people are poor because most wages are shit, education costs too much, jobs are difficult to get and harder to keep, employers progressively seem to have less and less sense of duty or humanity, and huge, grotesquely rich corporations and individuals (the same ones on the TV blaming poor people for the world's problems) are avoiding paying their fair share.

I've been lucky enough to find a career that interests me, and I've earned my education -- I managed to get it started before the huge increases in living costs and tuition fees came about -- but the new generation of this country is going to be the first generation in history that is worse off than the one that came before them: and if you ask any British economist, they will tell you that it is because of the political and economic decisions of these kids' parents and grandparents.

In the 1960's in the UK, 640 hours work at the average wage would have bought an average priced home. In the 1970's, just over 1,300 hours at the average British wage would have bought an averagely priced home. Now, it would take the average wage-earner over 15,600 hours to buy the average-priced home.

That's not "millenial laziness" or "poor life choices" or "not knowing the value of work", or any of that other bullshit that older folks like to spew about. That's just plain fucking unadulterated, indisputable fact. Kids nowadays have it far, far harder when it comes to money and opportunity. And not only are the older generation wiling to vote them out of a better deal -- out of free healthcare and cheaper education and fairer wages -- but they're also willing to saddle these kids with the bills for their retirement. All these know-it-all crusty old bastards that take from these kids with one hand and shaft them up the ass with the other.

1 point

Total fecal mass is x. Total fertilizer production is (x - 30%). Therefore bananas are friendly.

What the fuck is this supposed to prove?

Proportionately, most people get a small fraction of their labour product. You posting some shit about cumulative American income versus gross GDP to prove "we get a fair share of the wealth we create" is moronic: we are most people. Or wait: Are you a billionaire? Do you get to leech 20% of your companies' profits every year for yourself?

1 point

Feudalism was forcefully implemented. Neocapitalism is necessarily a mode of suppression, and in this regard is not dissimilar to feudalism: for one person to rule, all others must bow, and for one person to "succeed" to immense financial wealth, many others must fail. This is why less than fifty individuals own over half the world's material wealth, and why almost half the population of the Earth live in what we in the Western world would call financial and material poverty.

Like title, money is most often inherited, and it is used just as effectively as title to oppress.

You and I, relatively speaking, have a far superior standard of life to may people across the world, but we are still born into a system we don't decide upon. And I can assure you, that once mankind siezes the power to determine how and for whom he creates wealth and propserity -- as a democratic unit -- there'll be no more billionaires and no more Kings and Queens, and with the right education, no more starving kids.

Capitalism is grotesque.

In the same few acres of space in the subcontinent you can find a merchant selling hundreds or thousands of tonnes of produce wrought from the labour of hundreds of impoverished, malnourished Indian women, and those same women cutting the bad pieces out of the cast-off onions to sell in order to buy minuscule helpings of staple foods, living barethread, shoeless, day-by-day.

Capitalism rewards immorality and heartlessness, and punishes anybody who dislikes that reality. It makes monsters out of people.

seanB(339) Clarified
1 point

I think you might be struggling with the definition of the word "limitless".

SeanB has not yet created any debates.

About Me


Biographical Information
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Single
Political Party: Other
Country: Ireland
Religion: Atheist
Education: Masters

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here