tweedle-dee wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
(MISQUOTE): I've provided more than an abundance of evidence backing up my case. Whereas, you've done SHIT to back your case up, you fucking asshole.
Are you joking? You almost ALWAYS disagree with me You really are a complete dumb fuck.
Yeah, I know. But don't laugh, folks...this fucker is serious...Yeah, I know. But don't laugh, folks...this fucker is serious...
Anyway...
Keep FAILIN' and FAILIN' HARD, It's always such a wonderful & entertaining show you put on.
That train ain't never late...
STOP misquoting me, asshole.
Thinman wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
… I've provided …
Consult a doctor. Seriously.
I rest my case.
Mij wrote:
Ignoring the benefits of Capitalism and concentrating on the negative aspects of it ?
The positives FAR outweigh the negatives ?
Yes. And yes.
Mij wrote:
I had to read twice to be sure !
Well, then you'll have to read it again to be even more sure.
Mij wrote:
We're losing the planet because of greed largely promoted by capitalism.
When it's done, where will be the positive aspects of capitalism ?
We don't need more capitalism on this planet, we need less !
So you STILL don't know the difference between a Mixed Economy and Capitalism, eh?
Mij wrote:
Please, don't give us links that prove your point, forcing us to lose our time finding links that'll say the opposite.
None of the links I've provided state the opposite of my points of view. Please start educating yourself and stop buying into Socialist/Communist BS.
Mij wrote:
Do yourself a favor, calm down, go outside, take a walk, talk to your neighbours, smile to children,
give spare change to somebody in need, breathe some fresh air in a park nearby.
I do most of those things almost every day.
polydigm wrote:
Basically, DB is a one dimensional thinker trying to understand and comment upon three dimensional ideas.
Disco Boy wrote:
... and those crazy things called FACTS ...
His comments are full of this kind of language which has no place in true intellectual debate. I studied philosophy, history, sociology and psychology at post graduate level and had to hold my own in two main arenas. The first was tutorials where amongst a group of my peers I had to debate some issue or other. Talk like DB's would have just been laughed out of the room. His writing is riddled with invective padding and extreme claims about various people's lack of understanding:
I've backed up my claims with either compelling evidence or FACTS. But all you can do is claim because you've studied at a "post graduate level", that that automatically makes you comprehend this subject more than I, when it clearly doesn't. You need to start backing your claims up. And until you do, it's all smooth sailing for me from here on in, especially since you don't have the slightest understanding of what Capitalism is and/or how crucial it's been and will continue to be for society as a whole...
polydigm wrote:
polydigm wrote:
Industrial Revolution is not equivalent to Capitalist Revolution.
Disco Boy wrote:
Whether you want to believe it or not, Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution walked hand in hand and were, are and will continue to be extremely essential to the quality of life.
You want an intellectual debate and yet you don't know what equivalent means. If I say A is not equivalent to B that is not a statement that says A and B are entirely different, except perhaps in your black and white world. The Industrial Revolution is a human achievement that will stand the test of time as discoveries, once they are made are not easily forgotten, whereas Capitalism is a social organising principal. There is no absolute logic that has been established by anyone that proves that eventually moving on from Capitalism will negate the benefits of the Industrial Revolution. Who gives a shit about who the Primeminister or President was over a 100 years ago, but no-one will ever forget or doubt the significance of the discovery of electromagnetism.
I know what equivalent means. But I said that Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution walked hand in hand. And they did. And it seemed like you were disagreeing with that. In fact, it appeared you thought they were enemies or something? And now you don't?!
And who's talking about that moving on from Capitalism negates the benefits of the Industrial Revolution?! Not me.
polydigm wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
Just about ANYONE who lives in a Capitalist and/or Mixed Economy wants to make more capital.
Do you even know what the term capital means? The money earned by anyone who labours to make a living wage is not capital. It's soon spent on ... gues what ... living.
Wtf?
The money earned by anyone who labours to make a living wage is DEFINITELY capital. And in most cases, not all of it has to be spent on living...only part of it does.
polydigm wrote:
A true capitalist is one who has accumulated enough wealth to negate the need to labour for wages, who privately owns some of the means of production, enabling him to expand his wealth by reaping the surplus value of that production. That is, a very small privileged class of people. The vast majority of the human race labours to make a living in one way or another connected with the functioning of the means of production.
Wtf?
Generally speaking, that's only part of what Capitalism or the term capital means. ANYONE making a living in a Capitalist and/or Mixed Economy makes capital and can choose to spend that on whatever they wish, minus living costs and expenses. And of course Capitalism is connected with the functioning of the means of production because that's part of how and why the system works! There are evils embedded within it, there's no doubt about that. But you're making it seem like most people are victims of Capitalism, when it's the COMPLETE opposite. And it's truly astonishing to me you don't seem to realize that.
polydigm wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
But there's actually two kinds of greed, financially speaking. But for some reason, many people can't separate or distinguish between the two. One of course is the extremely selfish kind, which brings out the negative aspects of Capitalism and gives it a bad name sometimes ...
In other words greed as we all already know it means.
No, it's one definition of what it means.
polydigm wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
... But the other, is the necessary kind, where productivity, pride in achievement and hard work drives people to flourish in a positive way...and THAT'S what makes the world go 'round.
That is not greed by any stretch of the imagination and it is an insult to name it so. If "... productivity, pride in achievement and hard work drives people to flourish in a positive way...and that's what makes the world go 'round ..." why do we need private ownership or capitalism?
Are you joking?
We need it because Socialism/Communism doesn't give us productivity, pride in achievement and hard work that drives people to flourish in a positive way. Nor will those two systems EVER come even remotely close to doing so, or what Capitalism and/or many types of Mixed Economies have done for society.
polydigm wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
But Capitalism is FAR superior to any economic system you can name. This is not even debatable.
So why are trying to debate it? (The suggestion that DB might actually be debating is debatable ...)
I'm not. I'm educating you. And unfortunately, or fortunately, you clearly need educating on this topic.
polydigm wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
It's a shame that you seemingly don't understand Capitalism. And that's not only because you amazingly think it didn't play a HUGELY important role in the Industrial Revolution or that it wasn't embedded within this period ...
polydigm wrote:
The emergence of the former may have been unleashed by the strivings of the latter, but the industrial revolution is a human achievement.
I didn't say any of what you're claiming, you have assumed it based on a one dimensional interpretation of three dimensional thinking. I personally believe that Capitalism played a huge role in the emergence of the Industrial Revolution.
Then why the hell were you arguing with me about it for it seems like pages now?!
polydigm wrote:
But, likewise, the emergence of Capitalism owes its beginnings to the existence of Feudalism which in turn lifted us out of the earliest forms of the state based significantly on slavery. Your faith in Capitalism is no less fervent than that of various Feudal masters who weren't happy about losing their power to the rising capitalist class. A revolution which took at least 400 years in England before it was finally enshrined in what we now call modern parliament. And it was a revolution which lost little or nothing of the benefits of the system that went before it.
Now that's something that is debatable.
polydigm wrote:
Disco Boy wrote:
... but also because in most cases, Capitalism only flourishes if the market (the people) allows it to...
So are you seriously saying that the "market" is equivalent to "the people"?
Yes. And that's because it is in most cases.
polydigm wrote:
Who or what is "Capitalism" and who or what is "the people" and how does each act in the real world? Capitalism is a handful of people who get to dominate our lives, the people, everyone else, are ultimately very poorly represented in modern parliament and don't get to allow or disallow anything much directly.
Capitalism is an economic system that has worked wonders for the majority of people in the world. It has provided technological improvements, innovations, incentive, productivity, diligence, determination and capital, etc., for people's work and efforts. And without it, we'd be beyond fucked, especially with systems such as Socialism and/or Communism that have FAILED and FAILED HARD in EVERY single case they've been tried.
polydigm wrote:
The Capitalist ruling class of today, however coherent a group they may or may not be are holding onto the hands of the clock just like their Feudal forbears when their time was up and it took well more than 400 years to come about. We've been trying Socialism for about 100 years. Yes, so far we have failed miserably, but that doesn't mean that we've passed through many major changes in social organisation through history only now to suddenly stop at the miserably pathetic random, weather forcast, evangelistic belief in Capitalism. History has a tendency to disagree with such naivité. Just because we don't know what the solution is, doesn't prove it can't happen. If nothing else, Capitalism itself has already proved that beyond a doubt. The writing is on the wall.
Are you actually defending Socialism and/or Communism, despite the FACT it clearly has NEVER worked.
You need some serious history lessons. And FAST. Holy jumping shit-balls, Batman.
Caputh wrote:
One could gain the impression that Disco Boy's main intention is to take the ball(s) home with him...
What an excellent rebuttal!
tweedle-dumb wrote:
One things for sure, his Crystal Balls are shooting blanks when it comes to predictions. He needs political via-gra.
Really? What predictions have I made that haven't come true?
tweedle-dumb wrote:
My Crystal Balls predict that Dumbfuck Boy will re-post his list again at some point., likely at many more points.
You're going to need "Crystal Balls" if you're going to keep stating the complete BS you state on a daily basis.
tweedle-dumb wrote:
So to you, wiping out a race of people is the positive that outweighs the negative? No wonder why you're a Dr Ron "Josef Mengele" Paul supporter.
Denying the FACT that Capitalism has benefited the majority of people worldwide, is utter lunacy. But then again, this is you, so I'm not surprised you'd nitpick and concentrate on one of the negative aspects of it.
tweedle-dumb wrote:
Boy is confusing capitalism with imperialism.
Oh...the irony of that statement!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
