81–90 of 108 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.
The poster you're responding to is trying to show you that your "argument" is nonsensical mindless garbage and has no basis in rational thought. And being very polite about it to boot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the no true scotsman fallacy. I hear that one a lot. It's an oldie, but a goodie. Communism is a subset of socialism; the share they same root philosophy. They never actually implemented true communism because it's not possible. Humans will always create a hierarchy. Where no official hierarchy exists, they will create unofficial ones.
Let me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subse…
Edit: As was The Third Reich.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit . Interestingly enough, he was also one of the pioneers of the totalitarianism theory. He argued that Vladimir Lenin created the first totalitarian dictatorship and that nearly all communist and fascist states were…
> I remember reading that a particular author, Franz Borkenau, was highly critical of the communists in Anarchist Catalonia, describing the terror they inflicted on Barcelona in his book the spanish cockpit. Are you referring to the Stalinist oppression that began with the Barcelona May Days in 1937, or to anarchist atrocities in the city before then?
The book just made it to the top of my to read pile. :)
Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subse…
Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.
Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself.
Commodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g. networks) should be owned by the public. There is no point in having a market, when only one option makes sense or it is irrelevant which option you choose. There is no point in having competition, when it cannot improve the product or any process of its making. In these cases private ownership just leads to cartels or innovation in marketin…
> Commodities without an alternative (e.g. water) and natural monopolies (e.g. networks) should be owned by the public. Why do you think there's a water shortage in California right now?
Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA? I just don't understand it. Does everyone in the USA think they're a temporarily embarrassed millionaire? I hear so many horror stories from the USA. People's lives ruined because they lost their job, got injured or have some addiction problem. But those same people will curse socialism in that same breath if asked. I just don't understand it. I'm from the Netherlands, an…
Also I often hear the argument that many socialist and communist implementations failed due to corruption at the highest levels. I would argue that due to the reliance on central planning (and human central planners) those systems are just way more susceptible to corruption. Is there a single group of humans that has shown itself to be free from the formation of elite classes and corruption? From pre-school to the old folks home power and influence shift between people and they take advantage of it. How would a country ever work past that to implement large scale redistribution of resources through central planners?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me get this straight: >Communism is a subset of socialism and > Socialism always results in tyranny. but your only examples of tyranny are from communist regimes. Does that mean that: > Square is a subset of rectangle so >rectangle always results in four right angles given that my only examples of rectangles are squares? Saying socialism /always/ does anything, and then listing only examples from a specific subse…
The GDR was socialist and arguably a tyranny. Edit: As was The Third Reich.
Was it socialistic in name only, or actually socialistic in structure and policy?
Was Nazi germany not a dictatorship? How is that compatible with socialism at all?
"Why is socialism such a boogieman in the USA?" Because every single time it's been enacted in the past 100 years, it's resulted in the deaths of millions of its own citizenry. Because the very basis of the american legal system and the american legacy (not to mention english common law) is based on individual over collective rights. Socialism is, quite simply, unamerican, by definition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your attempt at applying mathematical logic to human affairs, as if one had anything to do with the other, is laughable.
Actually, this has nothing to do with mathematics other than one of the two examples being from geometry. This was pure deductive reasoning, a concept borrowed from philosophy. Would you say that attempting to apply philosophy to human affairs is laughable? I would think that is the very basis of the field itself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
If that was what you were doing, then I would applaud it. That's not what that was. You were focusing on precise inanities and using them to construct a logical sounding strawman in order to dismiss my point without having to address the main subject. This is a common rhetorical tactic knows as "disqualification."