- mattabesta wrote:
capitalism isn't the thing that makes ppl poor or sends ppl to the streets to die that's ppl not capitalism, it's not the systme no-one is telling corpret owners that they should fire X many ppl just for fun.
I'm not arguing anythimg about this in the parragraph you quoted but well, let me explain you how it works: Owners fire workers either because they don't need them anymore (either they've found a technique that lets them prescind of the workers they've fired, or they simply think they can substitute workers with more pressure on less workers) or they simply can't afford having that ammount of workers either by economic crisises or thed fact that the company lost revenues. Another option is that owners may simply want to increase income and reduce expenditures.
This of course doesn't mean that the employed workers aren't being epxloited nonetheless.
- mattabesta wrote:
zelut why do you think 70% of what I say is something that is the most common thing on the internet? maybe becuse that's what most ppl say?
or that it's right and that's why it's in evry book, encyclopedia and person?
Actually what I'm saying is that you often quote mainstream authors without making a reflexion of your own thinking that will give some strength to your arguement. Else you also tend to quote mainstream opinions on subjects most people actually do not know much or don't have objective views meaning your arguements, based on those opinions or critiques will be weak. Being mainstream doesn't make it right.
- mattabesta wrote:
what zelut will say: cpitalist, westren media is confusing you snobish dumfuck communism is right becuse I thinks spo and capitalist media is barainwahshing evreybody.
See? I would never call you dumbfuck for an instance, second I wouldn't say western media is confusing, I'd simply say its biased and doesn't have the intention to objectively inform about a given subject and that it will often incurr in misinformation something that is quite factual. And not only western media, every capitalist media since they're one of the tools the ruling class uses to oppress the people.
Now, every person will think a given system is right or wrong depending on his personal view of how things should be. That means that for a peson who considers equality undersirable, who wants to exploit others and amass great material fortunes, communism is most undesirable a wrong system while for a person who is not interested in having great material fortunes, who doesn't need to exploit anybody and who desires to live in a cooperative society in which he can feel safe, comfortable and free, in an egalitary framework, then communism is most desirable.
A systems works or not depending on its objective and how effectively it m anages to achieve it. Capitalism and communism can both be right, they simply don't follow the same objectives. In no way it is capitalism's objective to create a general state of wellbeing nor is it to create a cooperative framework nor an egalitary framework while communism does have such objectives. Capitalism intrinsically implies exploitation while communism searches to eliminate it.
You can't reach communism's goals through capitalism and you can't reach capitalism's goals through communism. As simple as that.
So wether a system is right or wrong depends on the person's objectives and personal views on what is wrong and right. Capitalism doesn't serve my objectives nor it serves my convictions of what is right so for me it's wrong.
Communism is right for me because, according to my convictions and my personal concepts of what is wrong and right, communism serves to reate a healthy and workable society. It serves my objectives and aspirations.
Now, you can objectively argue wether a system is right or wrong by assuming the next position:
Is the system in question achieving its goals?
On that premise Communism is right because it can only exist given its success.
- mattabesta wrote:
weak is what you decide for youself and since you dis agree no wonder you try to make me look dumb and republican(no argument)
1. I don't try to make you look like a dumbfuck and I even emphazise it.
2. A republican? How the hell do I imply that?
Now, I don't decide what is weak and what is not. There is an objective way to determine when an argument is wrong. Let me give a couple of examples:
1. "USSR system was communism. USSR's system didn't work. Ergo communism doesn't work" - This is a weak argument. Why? Because it is based in the false idea that USSR's system was communism. The arguement, based on a false premise, becomes a phallacy itself.
2. "Communism's goals were to free workers from the poor conditions they had in the middle of the XIX century. Since those conditions don't exist anymore as workers have now broader access to health facilities, education and have farewell from the government which helps them develop. Communism is a XIX century ideology and the conditions it was created to extinguish don't exist anymore so it is nvalid now". - This is a weak argument for many reasons:
1. It is based on the false idea that communism's goals are limited to change the fact that workers did ave very poor conditions in thd XIX century. Communism has much broader implications. Communism searches for equality, for end of exploitation, for the dstruction of capital, for the destruction of state, for the implementation of a totally cooperative society, for everyone in this world to enjoy equal conditions and freedoms.
None of those implications has been met and if met they'd mean the instauration of communism. Therefore it's false to state communism's goals have been already achieved thus making the argument weak.
2. It is based on the false premise that workers' conditions have completely changed in comparison to the workers' conditions in XIX. For an instance, there is a universally appliable fact: workers, in spite of their conditions and country of origin are being exploited. It doesn't matter if a US mason is making 36 dollars per hour and a Mexican mine worker is making 5 dollars per day, both are being exploited since they're producing much more than they're receiving granting a profit to their boss. That is, the boss acquires profit at the expense of the worker, that is exploitation. Now, the premise that workers' conditions have greatly improved from XIX century to our days is not universally appliable. In a great ammount of countries working conditions are quite comparable, slighty better or even worse than in comparison to XIX century workers. Therefore the premise is false.
Being these two main premises for the aforementioned argument false, the argument becomes a phallacy and as such it is a weak argument.
It's not that I think the arguments are weak, they're weak for their nature as they're based on false premises. You see the difference?
That's an objective way to determine the weakness of a given argument and in which I base my argument that your arguments are weak.
Home 
Subject: Re: US is falling... 
Thu Sep 18, 2008 6:02 am
