Minecraft Forums

Quote from Torrusty

Here is the order in which you should do things. [stuff]

Why do you think it is you can tell me what to do? This is childish and immature.

Quote from Torrusty

Cosmic is flexing his intellectual muscle by referencing Chapter 3 of the Communist Manifesto.

More childish immaturity.

Quote from Torrusty

Let me provide the entire section in full context so we can actually understand what it is you are referencing.

I linked to it and it's easily find-able on the internet, so I don't see why it would be important to quote the full text. This is unnecessary and a waste of space, but sure, whatever.

Quote from Torrusty

You have no idea what you are talking about. I find it so funny you claim to adhere 100% to the word of Marx, but lack the ability to even understand the most basic of texts he has written.

So quoting what I quoted and referenced to you, then stating I have no idea what I'm talking about and use an ad hominem fallacy to dismiss my argument..... Is your entire argument?
Again, childish and immature. You are being irrational and illogical and it's truly apparent because so far there has been no content to your post.

Quote from Torrusty

From the very beginning Marx makes it obvious what he is exactly talking about. He is referencing the people who see the ugliness in the world, and seek to correct it through reform.

Oh wow, thanks for the lecture, doc... *rolls eyes*
Still not an argument, and still no content to your post.

Quote from Torrusty

Nobody uses the term “bourgeois socialists” today. It is incredibly antiquated and I truly doubt it was used meaningfully at all outside of the age of Marx.

In today's plain language, we would simply call them social-democrats or “socialists”.

No. No we wouldn't.
Marx knew what Social Democrats were. You can see him reference them many times in his texts. The definition has not changed.
As for calling them 'socialists', no. First off, that is too broad of a word and accounts for pretty much everyone who believes in Socialist/Communist theories, but what Marx is doing here is picking out pretty specific groups of socialists to define them as the groups they are and to define the errors they make and the flaws of their arguments.

If you didn't understand that, you should not be attempting to explain to me, or anyone, what this text states. It's very obvious.

Quote from Torrusty

These are the kind of people that constantly talk about the wonders of the Nordic economic model. They always talk about human rights and the need to empower all sectors of society. They are anti-war and pro-peace. They despise police brutality. They talk constantly of vegetarianism. They want to raise the minimum wage to a “livable wage”. They think feminism is the solution to all the worlds problems.

Those are all different groups of people with their own movements and not a singular movement that Marx was speaking of.
Furthermore, you're speaking of Social-Capitalists, not your so-called "Socialists". And while Marx does indicate some of these people in here, what you fail to realize is that I have condemned you as a Social-Capitalists, because your ideology follows their own except you take it merely one step further to suggest that we do dethrone the bourgeoisie (temporarily) in order to give the proletariat more power..... But as noted where I quoted him in the text, you wish to restore the ways of the old system.

Now tell me... How can they be "restored" as Marx states, without first having been dismantled or broken? It is only through the revolution, which you seem to believe in to some extent... But wish to later restore society after this revolution in attempts to give power back to the bourgeois class, giving them all the systematic means of exploitation.

All of this is within what I quoted already. You fail to realize this because you're trying to deny what is apparent, that which you make yourself blind to.
The Social-Capitalists you speak of... The Nordic system... Does not ever wish to abolish the Bourgeois or to take make public the means of production... Therefore no concept of restoring this is possible for THEM.... But for your own movement, it is... And therefore he speaks to people of your kind, not necessarily theirs.

Quote from Torrusty

Do not go out and call me a reformist again. I have never advocated for reform.

I've never called you a reformist. I call you a revisionist.

Quote from Torrusty

I fully believe in violent revolution, authoritarianism, a strong military, and one party rule. Bourgeois socialists according to Marx want none of this.

Where does he say this?
Again, unless we overthrow te bourgeois system, there can be no replacing or restoring of this system. He talks of your intentions, not the vague reference of people you talk about. He talks about them elsewhere.

Quote from Torrusty

Man #1 failed at creating a product people would want to buy and can not successfully run a profitable business.

Man #2 created a product people want to buy and has run the business so successfully that there are enough profits to hire extra workers.

Man #2 now works as a marketer, salesman, and a manager for the company. The workers work to make the products. Man #2 is now paid for his skills of marketing, sales, and management.

Where is the problem in this?

You alter the example to make it look better! LOL!!! You are dodging the question entirely, and intentionally.

Use the example I gave, or don't bother to argue at all your nonsense. I've had enough.
If Man #1 and Man #2 both do the same work (producing the good), but Man #2 is hired by Man #1.... Is #2 being exploited or not?
Answer the question as-is, or attempt to explain how and why your system would not allow such a scenario.

Quote from Torrusty

Nobody owns the means of production. As soon as Man #2 chooses to retire or stop working, he is no longer paid profits from the company as he does not own it.

HA! Now you go back on your own words. I will quote you to demonstrate your error.

Quote from Torrusty

Along with that, I think successful founders of a company in market socialism should be rewarded to an extent.

You suggest I don't read your posts, but... It's very ironic... Neither do you!

Quote from Torrusty

Bourgeoisie do not exist in market socialism, there is no private ownership of the means of production.

Again, ignorance of Marxism. I've explained this already. Another reason why the quotes I posted from the Communist Manifesto earlier fit you well, since Marx explicitly states these people do not actually understand the bourgeois relations of production.

Quote from Torrusty

Market socialism is not impractical.

I've demonstrated that it is, and that it is flawed.

Quote from Torrusty

You are the one that has yet to propose any sort of clear solution for how socialist society is to be managed.

I don't need to, and should not, at this point in time. I've explained this already.
When you let go of your Capitalist nature, then we'll talk... but not until then.

Quote from Torrusty

Market socialism is not illogical. You are the one constantly using contradictory posts to attack me.

Show me some contradictions? You've yet to do so.
Your posts so far have been feuled by only contradictions, ad hominem, and meaningless, childish fluff which I've exposed above.

Quote from Torrusty

I would imagine that their would be less personal risk in market socialism when it comes to running a business. Certainly bankruptcy would still exist, but I see no reason for there to be a means to penalize an individual for a business failing as much as it happens in the USA. After a few unsuccessful startups, the person would likely be deemed ineligible for any future capital loans from the national banks.

Yes, Yes.... Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism Capitalism... Blah Blah Blah... I'm tired of hearing about your Capitalism.

Quote from Torrusty

The bourgeoisie are destroyed upon the success of the socialist revolution for all practical purposes.

And as I've explained... No they are not.
As long as the bourgeois relations of production still exist then the bourgeois class does not completely dissolve. It is still a huge threat, ESPECIALLY when you privilege them with the mechanisms of Capitalism in the new society, as you so propose by creating all of these Capitalist games for them to play around with.

Quote from Torrusty

Marx stated that workers will be paid for their work and not receive the full product of their labor. Workers will have three prime deductions made from the pay they receive: one for business expenses, the second for societal expenses (schools), and the third for the socialist state's administrative purposes.

This is irrelevant to anything either of us has ever said.... You bringing it up is pointless nonsense used to side-track the real argument, the one which exposes your Capitalist lingerings and demonstrates your contradictions. You wish to draw away from these facts.

Quote from Torrusty

You are the one that must be fully baked.

Insulting someone because you can't come up with an actual argument - Nice one.

Quote from Torrusty

You can not understand Marx at all, but then you insult me based upon your flawed understandings.

Insult you? I've merely displayed the flaws in your reasoning, the lack of insight or credibility, and the illogical nature of your arguments and the system you propose. None of this is anything like the actual insults you used, like the one just above. All of it is designed to demonstrate why you should logically abandon your argument, and demonstrates many reasons why I am correct that you should. If you merely looked at this rationally than you would necessarily see that your arguments have been destroyed in their entirety, and that you (not I) merely insult me rather than form new ones.

You are projecting. Do you know what projecting means? It's a psychological term I suggest you look up. Needless to say I'm not a Psychologist so I don't know how to respond to this behavior. So I just ask you stop it and realize what you are really doing.

Quote from Torrusty

I both laugh and grow angered by your constant fleeing from debate and use of insults to create a new discussion.

lol... ^ This guy....

Quote from Torrusty

The bourgeoisie would have to exist for state capitalism to exist. Private ownership of the means of production must exist for capitalist to exist.

Except if I'm correct in that the bourgeois relations of production do still exist in the system you propose (and they do, as I've shown), and that this means the bourgeoisie still exists in the system (and they do, as I've shown), and if you favor the bourgeoisie (like I point out that you do)... Then You are wrong, as I've demonstrated, and that you really are merely creating State-Capitalism through ignorance that you are supporting a bourgeois class that you merely assume is 'gone'.

This is Utopian nonsene. The Bourgeois and the Bourgeois sympathizers do not merely just "disappear" because you say they do, or because you want them to. The means of production may be temporarily out of their hands, but this is NOT to mean their class is completely destroyed. This merely means they are temporarily disadvantaged, until a system like YOURS is formed wherein it gives them back all of the old ways they previously used to exploit the proletariat and therefore take ownership of the means of production.

You can call them whatever you like when they are bourgeois but without a privately owned means - but they are still bourgeoisie, because they still possess the bourgeois relations of production that you want to keep around - The same thing they use and have always used, to obtain and maintain power. The same thing they will use against you and your own system to reform it back to the old ways, to once again establish Capitalism and to see the fall of the revolutionary forces.

Where have we seen that before? Oh, my gosh... Wait... Didn't that happen to the USSR?
- BAM!

Quote from Torrusty

I am not advocating for the Chinese economic model. Quite frankly, I do not want to debate you on China because I already know you will waste my time needlessly.

- States not supporting something he is supporting -
- States he doesn't want to talk about supporting/not supporting this because it is a 'waste of time' -

.....Yeah, if that isn't obviously hiding something. Maybe, as we've seen here, you merely know I'll win yet another argument and shove yours into the ground to rot and decompose like I've just done to your previous argument mulitple times now?

I may be beating a dead horse here.... But you're picking it up and trying to ride it!

Quote from Torrusty

Go back and read your example of Man #1 and Man #2.

No No, No.... lol You go back and read my example, since you attempted to alter it in order to side-step and ignore the flaw in your logic.

Quote from Torrusty

That system does not sound evil in the slightest, it sounds attractive enough for as basic as an example as it is. I do not want you to attempt to warp your own example on me as to why it is flawed in 1000x different ways.

Oh, Oh, Oh..... So you do realize your argument is flawed and that you admitted just don't want to use the real example I proposed?
I got to say, you've got guts to admit it despite it diminishing your argument to the point you essentially just admitted to their being "1000x" flaws in it. Congrats, I guess? Thanks for admitting the errors, though... even if you do it in a very back-handed kind of way.

Quote from Torrusty

The basic premise of Man #1 fails at operating a profitable business, so he goes to work producing widgets at Man #2 business is sound. Man #2 makes his living as a marketer, sales, and manager. Man #1 makes a living as a producer thanks to Man #2 and the product design he created. When Man #2 retires, he receives no private profits or continuation of salary from the business (assume pensions and retirement checks not existing).

Re-explanation of my original example - Only leaving out the obvious and inherent flaw I pointed out to you.
Priceless.

Just because you don't want to admit the flaw of your Capitalist system... Does not make it go away.

Quote from Torrusty

Once again, your equation that only capitalism can have markets and wage labor, while socialism has state-planning is flawed.

It's a generalization... I thought you could tell from the way I speak.
I call Market Socialism 'Capitalism' because it WILL inevitably resort back to Capitalism - always. It is not in itself "Capitalism" because we define Socialism as having a "publicly owned means of production", which a society may have temporarily meanwhile possessing a market.
However, this form of Socialism, rather than being a transitionary phase between Capitalism and Communism, would be a transition between Capitalism and..... back to Capitalism.

It may be a better form of Capitalism - but I'm not looking to reform the system, but to destroy it. You say this is what you want as well, but you don't argue for this. You argue for Capitalist systems, bourgeois relations of production, and overall general acceptance of the bourgeois mentality.

Quote from Torrusty

You do not actually debate me on this point, you mostly insult and use terrible examples.

Yeah sure. I guess none of my posts actually exist. It's all voodoo! *waves hands like he's doing magic*

No really though, you're silly. I'm done with these silly little insults and ad hominem fallacies of yours... Just face reality.

Quote from Torrusty

You literally just argued for state central planning through computers a few days ago. You clearly have some sort of desire for an economic system. I will keep saying “Your system” because I have no idea what your positions clearly are.

So you wish to allude to my system you admittedly know nothing (very little) about?....
Yeah umm, sure, whatever.... But when you get it wrong, which you do a lot, I'm obviously going to tell you about it.

Quote from Torrusty

At times you will call for state planning, and at other times you will call for anarcho-comunism modes of distribution.

I "call" for Marxism with technological aspects to help establish a functional, working society that prevents corruption and reversion to Capitalism. I don't argue for modes of distribution, but merely explain how the mode of production will modify the mode of distribution, as Marx explains.

Quote from Torrusty

Refer to my system all you want as market socialism. That is what it is and I have clearly shown it to be so.

So why would I call it anything else? The problem is you need to acknowledge that Market Socialism, particularly your form of it, is Capitalist in nature and wishes to reform any revolutionary Socialist society back into the old ways, restoring the bourgeoisie.