3 ms·

And, you're deflecting. It's called "whataboutism," and it's a logical fallacy. Educate yourself and look it up. You're also straw manning by claiming I said

And, you're deflecting. It's called "whataboutism," and it's a logical fallacy. Educate yourself and look it up. You're also straw manning by claiming I said imperialism is unique to capitalism, when I did no such thing. Please either refrain from replying, or actually engage with an argument. Now, back to the question I posed to you: did, or did not capitalist nations participate in wars of imperialism for the sake of economic expansion, which then resulted in people dying? PS: I know damn well what capitalism is. It's private ownership of the means of production, along with a market based economy and enforcement of private property rights. If you understood what capitalism was, or even basic economics, you would know that labor is one of the factors of production which is completely separate from capital. You also grossly mischaracterize how labor works in a socialist framework, again showing that you've never cracked a book other than maybe Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom. Moreover, you have no literal idea what a capitalist is, either, so I'll tell you: a capitalist is one who generates his or her living solely or mostly off of capital. Capital is defined as "means of production," including land, tools, and other things besides labor and raw materials that allow for this thing we call "production" to happen. And, I know you have this strange notion of the word "voluntary," whereby because I choose not to starve or freeze on the street, I have to live indoors, and, because I can't afford to buy my own home, I have to rent, yet you consider it "voluntary" that I have to agree to a coercive contractual agreement in order to have an extremely basic standard of living. This is laughable, and capitalism deserves all the jeers it gets for redefining common sense terms like this. So, anyway, let's not continue to deflect, and return to. the main point: do you want to answer the question or not? Did capitalist nations participate in wars of imperialism for the sake of economic expansion, resulting in the death of even one human? One is greater than 0, after all, so, if you can acknowledge that, then we can begin a more thorough accounting of the deaths of capitalism.

ivojp 6y ago
Christ, no wonder communism took over part of the world; arguing with you commies is exhausting. I was going to write more but consider this since you clearly don't know what "whataboutism" is or what the meaning of the word conflate is (otherwise you would have understood my argument): imperialist countries practice imperialism. You tied imperialism to capitalism. My argument with bringing in communist countries that practiced imperialism is to show you that regardless of how you organize your economy, you can be imperialist. You don't have evidence to show that if a capitalist country was communist instead that it would not have engaged in the conquest that it did. You should ask your city or state for a refund on your AP Language course.
neuromanser 6y ago
crickets... :)

ivojp 6y ago

Christ, no wonder communism took over part of the world; arguing with you commies is exhausting. I was going to write more but consider this since you clearly don't know what "whataboutism" is or what the meaning of the word conflate is (otherwise you would have understood my argument): imperialist countries practice imperialism. You tied imperialism to capitalism. My argument with bringing in communist countries that practiced imperialism is to show you that regardless of how you organize your economy, you can be imperialist. You don't have evidence to show that if a capitalist country was communist instead that it would not have engaged in the conquest that it did. You should ask your city or state for a refund on your AP Language course.

neuromanser 6y ago

crickets... :)