91
Discussions; Public Archive / Re: Capitalism BM
« Last post by Dale Eastman on June 19, 2023, 07:39:07 AM »Quote from: 18 June 14:18
Dale Eastman in actuality no individual owns anything or has any recognized rights by the system so the definitions of capitalism you presented are utter bullshit. That's my point, and thank you for supporting it with your observations of the fruitlessness of arguing about which type of slave plantation you live under.
Capitalism is a deceptive fiction of the ruling class. What else can I say about a system of collectivism, taxation, title trickery, exploitation, monopoly....
Quote from: 18 June 14:20
Dale Eastman authoritarian collectivism is any system in which some people rule others based on coercion and theft. It includes socialism, communism, fascism, technocracy, and capitalism. They're all slavery systems and the ruling class will use whichever works best for them.
Quote from: 18 June 14:23
It's simple. Capitalism though it claims so, doesn't actually recognize individual claims of ownership or property, nor does it have anything to do with free markets. It's strictly for the legally dead, that is corporations, not the living and lawful.
Quote from: 18 June 14:29
Dale Eastman thanks for kudos, asshole. Also, using all these definitions, who owns the shit? What if only the lucky few do? And having control of all essential resources, they enslaved everybody else as their capital, because, remember, human resource is capital as well, they own your lame ass too. And you proudly defend their right to do so.
0838--1122
164 minutes
Quote from: 19 June 11:29
ST: ➽ Dale Eastman thanks for kudos, asshole.
I gave an honest appreciation that you know what etymology is and you chose to interpret that appreciation as an insult.
BM: ➽ Dale Eastman in actuality no individual owns anything or has any recognized rights by the system so the definitions of capitalism you presented are utter bullshit.
My not understanding exactly what 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word-term "𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞" is severely limits communication and mutual understanding... So be a good discussion pardner and present 𝓨𝓞𝓤𝓡 articulate and factual definition of 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞.
As to the rest of your unsupported opinion in that sentence, Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
BM: ➽ the definitions of capitalism you presented are utter bullshit.
ST: ➽ Dale Eastman every time I debate with a supporter of capitalism they never agree with any dictionary definition and are not familiar with the etymology of the word.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞? Neither of you have presented a cogent definition of 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞.
What the both of you have presented is that you are both against 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞, what-ever-the-fuck 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞 is, yet you fail to articulate logic and reason to sway me to agree with you that 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞-bad.
Sheesh! I'm to agree with you that some-thing-bad but neither of you can define what the bad thing is.
BM:➽ Capitalism is a deceptive fiction of the ruling class.
You make a claim about something 𝓨𝓞𝓤 have refused to cogently define... Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
BM:➽ What else can I say about a system of collectivism, taxation, title trickery, exploitation, monopoly....
Verifiable facts proving your claims, else Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
BM:➽ Dale Eastman authoritarian collectivism is any system in which some people rule others based on coercion and theft.
Thank you for addressing my question.
Sorry. My error. That definition does not compile.
What is collectivism?
DE:➽ I do not understand what 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word-term "𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞".
BM:➽ It's simple. Capitalism though it claims so, doesn't actually recognize individual claims of ownership or property, nor does it have anything to do with free markets. It's strictly for the legally dead, that is corporations, not the living and lawful.
Sorry. You have not given me anything I can use to understand what 𝓨𝓞𝓤 mean when 𝓨𝓞𝓤 use the word-term "𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞".
ST: ➽ Also, using all these definitions,
ST: ➽ every time I debate with a supporter of capitalism they never agree with any dictionary definition
You can NOT have this both ways.
NOTICE: I have spent several 𝓨𝓔𝓐𝓡𝓢 attempting to understand what those such as yourself actually think in regard to 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕞... In what appears to have been a mostly futile effort on my part.
ST: ➽ who owns the shit?
Yes. Who owns the shit?
What, specifically, are you referring to as "the shit"?
Once I understand what you are specifically referring to, then I can determine if I agree, disagree, or need more info.
ST: ➽ What if only the lucky few do?
Too much dangling, non defined "things".
ST: ➽ And having control of all essential resources,
Missing is the list of these "essential resources".
To be drilled down on in later discussion, What is being controlled and how is this control being exercised?
ST: ➽ they enslaved everybody else as their capital,
What, specifically, is 𝕔𝕒𝕡𝕚𝕥𝕒𝕝?
ST: ➽ because, remember, human resource is capital as well
You're missing a few details, so I can not at this time, sign off on that definition.
ST: ➽ they own your lame ass too.
That is what is referred to as a "naked assertion". EVIDENCE?
ST: ➽ And you proudly defend their right to do so.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.