3 ms·

What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bub

What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said.

wtfwhateven 3y ago
>What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. nope >There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said. well it's not his problem you don't know what the words mean. what he said is simply objective reality - your "argument" is essentially identical to disagreeing with someone saying "apples are not oranges" because you don't know what an apple or orange is and the person didn't give any reasons to show that apples are not oranges
- memefrog 3y ago
  What he said is complete and utter nonsense.
  - wtfwhateven 3y ago
    nope, find a dictionary. your fantasy world doesn't reflect reality
    - memefrog 3y ago
      Are you on drugs?
      - wtfwhateven 3y ago
        not an argument, ad-hominen, etc etc https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html or is that also just a "bunch of words placed together to form nonsense" like everything else you don't understand?
dragonwriter 3y ago
> What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. It is an element of the original description of capitalism in which the system got its name (and it is the central element for which the system is named.) (That description happens to be contained in a socialist critique of capitalism as an actual existing system, but the particular element described is not the cornerstone of socialism, which is, after all, a prescriptive system, and not merely a critique of capitalism. It is the cornerstone of capitalism as an actual existing system, though.)
- memefrog 3y ago
  There is no such thing as "capitalism". That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people are able to freely trade with each other. Commerce isn't a system, it's a human activity that has existed for all of human history. So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist, who "acquire capital" and in doing so "acquire power" as opposed to the (noble and virtuous) workers who are actually the ones that generate all the value, but who suffer at the hands of the evil greedy capitalists who exploit them and steal all that value. Somehow we're meant to believe that despite these noble and virtuous workers generating all the value and far-outnumbering the evil, greedy capitalists, that the fact they haven't revolted and changed the system is because they're so oppressed and powerless (even though apparently they generate all value? what?). It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories. Everyone with retirement savings (vast majority of people) is a "capitalist" and everyone with a job (vast majority of people) is a "worker".
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people are able to freely trade with each other. No, its not, and the “not a system” you describe is neither what we call “capitalism”, nor anything that has ever existed. Restrictions and limits on trade exist in all real-world economic systems and conditions. “Capitalism”, is, at root, a particular structure of property rights. > So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist People who own capital exist, and I never made the moral claim that you make. (Leaving aside whether it has anything to do with socialism or not.) > It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories Actually, the socialist description of the structrue of capitalism does not have two categories; it recognizes a continuum of conditions, in which there are three main broad classes useful for discussion: those whose support is predominantly from renting out labor (proletariat/working class), those whose support has significant contributions from both labor and capital, as by applying their own labor to their own capital, though there are other patterns (petit bourgeois/middle class), and those whose support is predominantly through capital to which rented labor is applied (haut bourgeois/capitalist class).

wtfwhateven 3y ago

>What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. nope >There isn't a way that it is incorrect. It just isn't. It is like asking "how is it incorrect to say Wubble Bubble Jibble Quibble." It is a bunch of words placed together to form nonsense. He didn't give any reasons to support any of what he said. well it's not his problem you don't know what the words mean. what he said is simply objective reality - your "argument" is essentially identical to disagreeing with someone saying "apples are not oranges" because you don't know what an apple or orange is and the person didn't give any reasons to show that apples are not oranges

memefrog 3y ago
What he said is complete and utter nonsense.
- wtfwhateven 3y ago
  nope, find a dictionary. your fantasy world doesn't reflect reality
  - memefrog 3y ago
    Are you on drugs?
    - wtfwhateven 3y ago
      not an argument, ad-hominen, etc etc https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html or is that also just a "bunch of words placed together to form nonsense" like everything else you don't understand?

dragonwriter 3y ago

> What he said is the cornerstone of socialism. It is an element of the original description of capitalism in which the system got its name (and it is the central element for which the system is named.) (That description happens to be contained in a socialist critique of capitalism as an actual existing system, but the particular element described is not the cornerstone of socialism, which is, after all, a prescriptive system, and not merely a critique of capitalism. It is the cornerstone of capitalism as an actual existing system, though.)

memefrog 3y ago
There is no such thing as "capitalism". That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people are able to freely trade with each other. Commerce isn't a system, it's a human activity that has existed for all of human history. So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist, who "acquire capital" and in doing so "acquire power" as opposed to the (noble and virtuous) workers who are actually the ones that generate all the value, but who suffer at the hands of the evil greedy capitalists who exploit them and steal all that value. Somehow we're meant to believe that despite these noble and virtuous workers generating all the value and far-outnumbering the evil, greedy capitalists, that the fact they haven't revolted and changed the system is because they're so oppressed and powerless (even though apparently they generate all value? what?). It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories. Everyone with retirement savings (vast majority of people) is a "capitalist" and everyone with a job (vast majority of people) is a "worker".
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > That is a smear-word created by socialists to mis-describe the "system" (which isn't a system at all) wherein people are able to freely trade with each other. No, its not, and the “not a system” you describe is neither what we call “capitalism”, nor anything that has ever existed. Restrictions and limits on trade exist in all real-world economic systems and conditions. “Capitalism”, is, at root, a particular structure of property rights. > So yes it is a cornerstone of socialism to falsely claim that (evil, greedy, immoral) "capitalists" exist People who own capital exist, and I never made the moral claim that you make. (Leaving aside whether it has anything to do with socialism or not.) > It's just an incoherent mess of ideological nonsense. It puts people into two categories, even though actually most people are in both categories Actually, the socialist description of the structrue of capitalism does not have two categories; it recognizes a continuum of conditions, in which there are three main broad classes useful for discussion: those whose support is predominantly from renting out labor (proletariat/working class), those whose support has significant contributions from both labor and capital, as by applying their own labor to their own capital, though there are other patterns (petit bourgeois/middle class), and those whose support is predominantly through capital to which rented labor is applied (haut bourgeois/capitalist class).