All lives DO matter.

jeleyse

You're right, ALM is a device used to draw attention from the BLM movement. But even as a person who genuinely believes in the sentiment that no body is lesser than another body, it's still important to recognize the denotations around the phrase "All Lives Matter", and no matter which context you mean it in, it is always harmful to BLM. ALM can't be a valid or just statement until BLM is prioritized, even if your core belief is fundamentally correct.

anarchist100

@jeleyse
All lives do matter. I suppose it's not harmful if you clarify it in a sentence, I wish republicans actually believed all lives mattered. Us leftist have been always telling them that all lives matter! Funny how now they say it without meaning it.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

Yes they do, the folks who say it (Conservatives) don't believe so though. They say it because it's easier then saying Black lives matter. It's easy to say all lives matter and not mean it.

What makes you think conservatives don't think that.

anarchist100

@Debater123
You guys support the death penalty, no?

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@Debater123
You guys support the death penalty, no?

We do, the death penalty is a form of karmaic payback that can't be matched.

anarchist100

@Debater123
Criminals lives matter to, Karma exist to teach not to punish.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@Debater123
Criminals lives matter to, Karma exist to teach not to punish.

Karma exists to tell us that if we do something bad, it's gonna come back to haunt us.

anarchist100

@Debater123
It exist so that some day we can be compassionate people after seeing what it is to be the people we hurt not to scare us into it.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@Debater123
It exist so that some day we can be compassionate people after seeing what it is to be the people we hurt not to scare us into it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma The first sentence on the wiki article says no buddyo.

anarchist100

@Debater123
Wiki doesn't know about Karma, why would it? I suppose if you're referring to the definition of karma then in that case you can argue that I don't really believe in karma, but something else.

MichaelElpers

@anarchist100. I'm glad you get to decide what we believe. I would be more inclined to say all lives matter because that is true and shows more unity, also I don't support BLM. BLM mainly protests police brutality but won't protest against black on black crime or realize there is a serious issue plaguing their community regarding crime. They want to get rid of the nuclear family which is one of the reasons their community suffers and nearly all the money they raise goes directly to democrat candidates rather than investing in the community. They've caused billions of dollars worth of damage, damaging the lives of many black people throughout America. Meanwhile they don't even propose many solutions other than defund the police, which is a terrible one.

Ironic that your username is anarchist yet you claim to be a leftist.

anarchist100

@MichaelElpers
Aren't anarchist leftist? That's what I heard from everyone.

MichaelElpers

@anarchist100. I'd say it's much closer to liberaterianism. Leftists in today's America want more government control. The opposite of anarchy.

anarchist100

@MichaelElpers
I've heard it called libertarian socialism.

MichaelElpers

@anarchist100. I don't feel that socialism lines up with anarchism either, unless you think people voluntarily form socialist structures when anarchy ensues. I've never seen that.

anarchist100

@MichaelElpers
Noam Chomsky Explains Libertarian Socialism - Bing video

anarchist100

COMMENT HAS BEEN BANNED

jeleyse

@MichaelElpers
Nobody said the all lives matter is untrue. The foundation of BLM is that all lives do matter, and the attention needs to be placed in the right areas for the statement to hold up. As it stands, BLM and the black community is not receiving the recognition and support that it needs in order for ALM to be as true and "unified" as you say it is.

1. I can't find any sources for the information you stated, and it would be greatly appreciated if you could share where you're getting these statistics about where the money is going, etc. Many Black Lives Matter leaders have come out to say that many of these ideas are nothing but conspiracy theories designed to bring down the cause. (https://abc6onyourside.com/news/nation-world/as-black-lives-matter-donations-surge-some-want-to-know-where-the-money-goes)

2. "Black-on-Black Crime": a controversial but important discussion topic, which is mostly rooted in the stigma that black people or people of color are inclined towards crime. It is a trend that does not represent a group as much as it represents an individual. There also exists a double standard there: there are many cases of "white-on-white" crime (mostly as represented through domestic abuse and white collar crimes) are never viewed as a threat to white people as a whole. White criminals are seen as unfortunate individuals and African-American criminals are seen as a statistic with which to put down the causes that matter most.

3. I do not mean to presume your race, but it is important to remember that white people cannot make broad comments on behalf of a community that we are a) not part of and b) historically responsible for the oppression of. Therefore it isn't our place to put down one of the only truly momentous leaps against systematic racism because it goes against our perfect status quo. If you are not black, it isn't your decision what is or isn't damaging.

4. There are many solutions that we've proposed, that people are unwilling to recognize. Defunding the police is misunderstood and implies more than the title suggests, and there are many organizations that have been formed to push legislation in order to reduce the damage caused by systematic racism (ex. the 20/20 club). Not supporting BLM is the very thing that's preventing the right steps to be taken.

MichaelElpers

@jeleyse. I never claimed people said ALM is untrue.

1. There are sources refuting that funds funneled through act blue did not go directly to the DNC but Kaylee scales the managing director hasn't been transparent about where the funds are going either. Destroying the western prescribed nuclear family was on the BLM website. Exasterbating an issue that is already harming the black community isn't a great solution.

2. I don't think black people are specifically geared towards crime, as that would be a racist thought, however they do have certain cultural tendencies that cause crime tendencies. I have no double standard, I don't like any crime, but there is an obvious issue when 14% of the population is commiting 50% of the violent crime. I find this issue much more relevant to helping the black community than the few bad police interactions that happen each year that also occur to whites.

3. I absolutely should voice my opinion about what is or isn't damaging regardless of my race. If white people didn't voice their opinion slavery would have never ended. Causing 2 billion dollars in damages isn't a great solution, ignorant leaders claiming insurance will cover it.

4. Show me proposed solutions then. Defunding police I think is a terrible one as well as destroying the nuclear family.

jeleyse

@MichaelElpers
1. Then I see no reason why we should assume the existence of ulterior motives, although I don't necessarily disagree with you about this. For me, I view it as another way that racism is expressed (this certainly doesn't necessarily apply to you, I'm just pointing it out)- there are many shady dealings regarding income in large white-owned businesses (take Amazon, for example), that we don't rush to shut down as much as we do with BLM.

I also admit I am largely unfamiliar with the significance of destroying the nuclear family. I'm very aware of what it is, but I'm struggling to find out why this is such a significant argument, and also why it "harms the black community". Forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't think I'm seeing why this is such a detrimental part of the cause. It would be wonderful if you could explain this one to me again.

2. I agree with you, crime is crime no matter who commits it, even with certain statistics suggesting increased crime in black communities. This statistic shouldn't necessarily be ignored, but the scenario is completely different when the cop is the offender, and the black victim did nothing to incite an altercation. Although not every fatal interaction between the police and a person of color is like this, there are too many similar cases to suggest a coincidence (https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ ; https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/) The second article filters through the information and finds the rate of unarmed black deaths to be almost 3 times the rate of unarmed white deaths. Situations like these shouldn't be grouped together with regular crime, violent or not.

3. I never said you shouldn't voice your opinion. I'm saying it isn't our place, as white people, to make broad statements about what is damaging to us when we will never experience that damage, especially when there's a great deal of evidence to suggest that no real damage is being done. To your example, it would be like saying things such as "slaves don't mind working extra hours" or "it isn't that bad for them", when in fact, you are not a slave. It isn't our job to speak for black people, it's our job to support them and work alongside of them.

Your video is interesting, but I'm already convinced of the sometimes destructive effects of violent rioting. That's the idea- to cause a stir and to express unrest. Although I don't necessarily believe that violent rioting is always the first option, but I believe it's justified when your voice is being put down and ignored everywhere else. The video boils it down to a strictly economic issue, but perhaps I just value people's lives more than I value property, which is where we disagree. The economy can recover. The hundreds of innocent deaths at the hands of the defenders of our country cannot be reversed. Maybe if people genuinely cared so much about the riots, they would do something about what's causing them. Which brings me to number 4.

4. Although there are plenty other arguments on here about the term "defunding the police", I think I can summarize my views on it here: "defunding" is a pretty polarizing and misleading phrase, and from it plenty of legal reforms can be drawn. I think a better word would be "de-tasking". The police are in charge of more than they deserve to be in charge of. An example: someone shows up at your house, claiming to be a plumber, because the government said that they are in charge of nationwide plumbing. You trust that they will do their plumber job as usual, efficiently and effectively. They end up doing a terrible job and cause more damage than what you started out with. You get angry, understandably, and they eventually explain that they are just a local librarian who doesn't know how plumbing works, and that they had no other option. Probably a convoluted example behind a simple concept: the police have too much power and need to be cut down in order to aid in running the country effectively. There are plenty of proposed tax reforms and bills that will achieve this.

I hope you have a wonderful day.

MichaelElpers

@jeleyse. First off, I'm glad we can have a reasonable discussion.

1. The nuclear family is a huge deal, because you seem to keep yourself updated on current events, it says something that the media has never shown this to you. Studies have shown one of the biggest factors to keeping someone out of poverty is havinga 2 parent home.
https://www.aei.org/articles/the-power-of-the-two-parent-home-is-not-a-myth/

2. The source you posted is misleading. It is comparing rates by population size, which the wrong way to do an analysis. What we should be comparing is the amount of interactions, even more relevant violent interactions. Blacks happen to make about 50% of these interactions, looking at data from this perspective blacks are actually shot at a lower rate.

3. I don't support ideas I think aren't in the best interest of people. The reason most people think the black community suffers is due to economic hardship. The riots are just exacerbating that which doesn't just effect the economy, it effects their lives.

4. I don't really follow. The police are trained in their job. Abusing power is an issue sometimes. However I think the biggest issue is accountability and I think the main issue there is the union that supports and hides officers wrong doings. The media can't point this out because they support unions.

You only proposed 1 solution and this is why I believe you and BLM is missing the mark. There are obvious big issues in the black community that is keeping there community from being as successful as others. The one BLM focuses is a few cases per year, and I often believe use misleading and false narratives. What are the other solutions that focus on the root issues of black crime being so high, and why the community as a whole seems to be less well off economically compared to all other races?

jeleyse

@MichaelElpers I appreciate your response as well! I've had this conversation with many conservatives who share your beliefs, but you stand out to me as one of the only ones who genuinely believes that Black Lives Matter and are possibly looking for different solutions for the same problem.

1. After doing some research, I definitely understand the concept better and have formed some ideas. I believe a vital part of "destroying the nuclear family" is normalizing not having one. Many people of color don't necessarily have the luxury of that choice, and dismantling the system that favors people who grew up in nuclear families (i.e. statistically, white people) helps dismantle a racist system.

2. Population size is the only accurate measurement that we can use, because it contextualizes the number of fatal interactions. It is statistically false to compare the two numbers equally. You said it yourself above, African Americans only represent about 14% of the total population, and when the statistics show that the number of unarmed fatal altercations are equal for both black and white people, we know we have a problem.

3. I understand, but like I said, the rioters are searching for something permanent and significant. Although the economy is, admittedly, extremely significant and has major effects on these people's lives, it is temporary and ever-changing. Therefore we cannot value property and short-term economy as much as we value long-term racial justice, although I realize this is too general of a statement to apply to everyone.

4. I mostly agree. The police have too much power, and it lends itself to frequent abuse. "Defunding the police" comes with plenty of legal action that can be taken in order to reduce the widespread power of the police force, both on a statewide and nationwide level. More bills (such as the Justice in Policing Act of 2020) would be introduced in order to check and regulate police power. You're probably aware, however, of the active legal opposition to these bills, leaving the BLM movement with no square one from which to leap.

I really respect everything that you mentioned in the last paragraph. These are the questions that need to be asked in order to make progress, and it's important to recognize biases on both sides. I admit I don't have the answers to a lot of these questions, and neither do most other people. I view it as a space to build a grander organization from, without facing oppression from the parties who disagree with the foundation of BLM. Maybe we don't have the answers to these questions just yet, but is that an excuse to put down the progress that has been made on behalf of the black community? Just because we're "missing the mark", doesn't mean we have to stop supporting it. I know this isn't the strongest debate style on my part, but I tend to believe that the steps toward justice can be boiled down to more than just statistics and objective planning.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@MichaelElpers
I've heard it called libertarian socialism.

The two terms contradict each other...

MichaelElpers

@jeleyse

1. Normalizing not having a nuclear family is a terrible idea though. If you look at 2 parent housholds, Asians are at 85%, whites at 74%, Hispanics at 61%, and blacks at 36%. Not coincidentally this coincides with how well each group does economically. What BLM should be doing is pointing out that they have an issue and encourage the black community to keep 2 parent housholds for the future of their children.

2. Using population size is wrong though. If you are wanting to know how often the police shoot someone why would you include people that never even have had an interaction with police, they aren't relevant. When you look at those who have interactions, or even more relevant those who are being arrested for violent encounters, blacks are shot at lower rates. Its not the polices fault they have more interactions with the black community. Do you think there is a large issue because police largely shoot and arrest men in comparison to women?

3. Statistically speaking I think the riots and looting negatively impacts far many more black lives, than the few instances of police brutality that occur per year. Something I disagree that majorly targets blacks.

4. I have to look at each bill because some of the things I have heard argued are ridiculous. Joe biden claimed that the police should shoot at the perpetrators legs, which is the exact opposite of what anyone who owns a firearm is taught. I don't support BLM not just because they miss the mark on the main issues, but I think they spew misleading information and propose solutions that will actually have negative impacts. There is a reason there are black individuals don't support BLM, and I can tell you it's not because they think their own lives dont matter.

jeleyse

@MichaelElpers

1. But it just isn't a choice. Nobody chooses whether or not to live in or give their kids a perfect nuclear family, and that isn't something that can be instantly changed. This idea is pointing out the racism of the system: many black families are affected by things like mass incarceration, living below the poverty line because of systematically low income, etc., all of which affect the nuclear family structure in black communities. The lack of opportunity for kids who grew up in single parent households is nothing that they can control, and the idea of "destroying it" is a plea to open up more pathways for people who didn't have that luxury. Normalizing this is the first step to achieving this.

2. I'm not referring to "violent encounters". The statistic I gave you specifically represented all the cases in which the victim is completely unarmed and non-threatening. It's so vital to include everyone in the count because it demonstrates exactly how many white people a police could pass on the street and never say anything about, and how few black people the same police officer could pass and have issues with. The cop could have stopped every black person they saw, but yet stop the same number of white people, even if that group of white people only represents a small percentage of that population, if this makes sense. As it stands, with this rate, if cops fatally shot 100% of the black population, only 14% percent of the white population would be affected. Nothing about that suggests "lower rates" to me.

3. I understand, but the looting and rioting is also addressing more than just the police brutality. Systematic racism is more prevalent in these people's lives than whatever damage the looting is doing to them.

4. Agree to disagree, then. I don't exactly see any of the proposed action as misleading, but maybe I'm missing some of the information that you're referring to. I fail to see the problem with the firearm issue (possibly because I have no experience with them), but it seems as though relearning some tactics and training would be overall more helpful than losing innocent lives, colored or not colored, because of a lethal accident. Reformation of a country isn't an easy process, and if these individuals who "don't support BLM" but still believe that black lives matter, have any better plans for inciting progressive action, I'm sure the rest of the movement would be happy to hear them.

MichaelElpers

@jeleyse
1. I disagree, most people can decide to be unselfish and work it out with their partner in order to give their child the best chance at success possible.
Two parent housholds among blacks was much higher during slavery and before the Civil rights movement, so forgive me if I don't believe that systematic racism is the main reason they are failing here. It's not that single parent children have a lack of opportunity, it's because mothers and fathers have a profound impact on a person's life, getting rid of one of those influences often has extreme negative influence on a young persons life.

2. Unarmed doesn't mean non-threatening. Your analysis is only relevant if you think police officers go around stopping random people in the street for no reason. Under your analysis the police because men and women make up roughly 50% of the population, we should be seeing equal arrest rates, fatal shootings, ect among that populace as well. However men dominate these categories, so where is your concern for men?
The reason is people can accept that men can be responsible for there high crime rates, but can't give the responsibility to the black community.
Looking at police interactions is the only objectively relevant stat.
In 2019, 9 unarmed blacks were shot compared to 19 whites.

3. I'd like to see the proof of that. Where are these laws or systems that keep the black minority community down, but seemingly unneffects the minority Asian community?

4. Some of the stats you posed I would say are misleading. They presented lie after lie when discussing the Breanna taylor case. I'd love to see the day when a BLM leader would say in 2019, 9 unarmed blacks were shot, most people think it's in the hundreds or thousands.
Regarding guns, I will say this is why 2nd amendment advocates get pissed when people who have no experience with firearms try to make decisions about them.
If you ever gone shooting, you'd realize that being accurate is much harder than you think, especially trying to hit a moving target. In self defense you are taught to shoot someone in the chest, because it is the biggest target and has less movement. Legs are smaller and have much more movement, officers shooting a someone legs are far more likely to miss and have a ricochet off the ground that hits a innocent person. Often it can take 3 to 5 shots in the chest to incapacitate someone trying to harm you. Even if you get lucky enough to hit them in the leg it's not likely enough to put then down.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@MichaelElpers
I've heard it called libertarian socialism.

The two terms contradict each other.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@MichaelElpers
Aren't anarchist leftist? That's what I heard from everyone.

Bandwagon fallacy, secondly, everyone you heard it from must be regarded, ignorant, or indoctrinated.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@MichaelElpers
Aren't anarchist leftist? That's what I heard from everyone.

Bandwagon fallacy, secondly, everyone you heard it from must be regarded, ignorant, or indoctrinated.

anarchist100

@Debater123
Do you think anarcho-capitalism is the only real anarchism?

Happy_Killbot

Debater123 said:

anarchist100 said:

@MichaelElpers
I've heard it called libertarian socialism.

The two terms contradict each other.

No, they don't. Socialism doesn't mean "govn't contr'l" no matter how many rubes assert that is the case. You can have a socialist state with no government whatsoever, in this case it's just like anarcho-capitalism except that every business is run democratically and jointly owned by the workers.

Happy_Killbot

To say that conservatives " don't believe so though" is a little bit of a misunderstanding of what conservatives want. What they really want is for there to be inequity between the various classes, even if that means that the people at the bottom are suffering. It's not that there lives don't matter, it's just that they matter less than other people who are deemed more important for society.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. Actually what we want is freedom and less suffering overall.. Socialism does lead to equity, everyone suffers, except for of course the regime that institutes it.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers ;

Actually what we want is freedom and less suffering overall.. Socialism does lead to equity, everyone suffers, except for of course the regime that institutes it.

Explain how socialism guarantees that everyone suffers.

Capitalism guarantees that a certain portion of people will not be fed because there will always be demand for which it is less than economical to feed. Everyone below the supply demand cross point should not be supplied if profit is to be maximized.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

Socialism almost always has guaranteed that in history. It takes away incentives for people to create. I've always wondered why in free societies people who believe in socialism don't create their own socialist communities. Maybe because in reality they are greedy individuals who don't want to put in the work or take responsibility in creating their own idealogy. Get together your socialist friends, there is nothing preventing you from sharing your production as a community.

That is only true for specific products, it is not true as a whole.
For certain food products it may be that supply and demand create prices to high for poorer individuals. However if there is food that poorer individuals cannot afford, that creates a demand for cheaper products they can afford, something capitalism will supply because there is demand and a profit to be earned. Capitalism, when there is some form of competition, makes almost everything more affordable. Products like bottled water is cheaper and more accessible to individuals because of free market capitalism.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers ;

Socialism almost always has guaranteed that in history

Socialism is an umbrella term. Most modern socialists aren't looking for the socialism of the soviet union, or Venezuela, or the DPRK, or even China. What they mean is something more akin to the Nordic model, where businesses are effectively democratized rather than being autocratic.

I've always wondered why in free societies people who believe in socialism don't create their own socialist communities.

It's not legally sound. A socialist community would still face competition from external because the ability to do this is protected from corporate sponsors.

Get together your socialist friends, there is nothing preventing you from sharing your production as a community.

That's not really what the socialism we are talking about is. It's closer to everyone who works for a company owns stock in that company.

That is only true for specific supplies, it is not true as a whole.
For certain food products it may be that supply and demand create prices to high for poorer individuals. However if there is food that poorer individuals cannot afford, that creates a demand for cheaper products they can afford, something capitalism will supply because there is demand and a profit to be earned. Capitalism, when there is some form of competition, makes almost everything more affordable. Products like bottled water is cheaper and more accessible to individuals because of free market capitalism.

No, it is true in every situation mathematically. Think about a typical supply demand curve:

Image: https://www.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/39/8tegy75a4t45.png

Everyone on the right side of the demand curve past the equilibrium point can not afford to buy from the supply, because the price at the equilibrium point is more than they are willing/able to pay. This does not go down with competition, unless the sellers are willing to sell for less than optimal prices. The only way to get more people able to buy is if everyone is able to spend more than what is needed, or if the supply is great enough that the lowest bidder can afford it. However, there is no profit motive to increase the supply in this way if there is no expected return on investment, so it doesn't happen and people starve.

Furthermore, competition is a factor in both traditional capitalism and libertarian socialism. Probably what you think socialism is is actually state-capitalism, where there is no competition. This happens to be what many right-wing politicians are pushing for.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot

"That's not really what the socialism we are talking about is. It's closer to everyone who works for a company owns stock in that company."

You and any other socialist could make a business that has that policy, of course you would have put in the work of actually creating a working business. Most socialists can't or won't do this, they find it much easier to steal from someone else whose already done the hard work for them.

"They would still face competition from external"
So you don't think your socialist business model can stack up to competition in a free market? External competition which is what lowers the price and increases the quality of goods, I agree socialism is terrible at that.

Yeah I thought about the typical supply demand curve, what your missing is if there is food that can be made cheap enough for poor people to pay it, capitalism will do so because that is a profit to be earned. The consumer demand for the poor would be at a price they can afford, and therefore to gain profits from them the crossover would have to occur at a price they can afford.

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers ;

You and any other socialist could make a business that has that policy, of course you would have put in the work of actually creating a working business. Most socialists can't or won't do this, they find it much easier to steal from someone else whose already done the hard work for them.

It's called energy co-ops. Get there.

Socialism doesn't involve stealing, but inherently capitalism does because anyone who works for someone doesn't get to keep a portion of their surplus, which all goes to the owner.

So you don't think your socialist business model can stack up to competition in a free market?

No. See energy co-ops.

External competition which is what lowers the price and increases the quality of goods, I agree socialism is terrible at that.

The business would be exactly the same, just as competitive, just as productive, and operates with the same price lowering mechanisms as capitalism. The difference is that the profits instead of going to a few capitalist class go to the worker majority. That's it.

Yeah I thought about the typical supply demand curve, what your missing is if there is food that can be made cheap enough for poor people to pay it, capitalism will do so because that is a profit to be earned. The consumer demand for the poor would be at a price they can afford, and therefore to gain profits from them the crossover would have to occur at a price they can afford.

No, capitalism will not do this without sacrificing profit, because any production beyond the equilibrium point will lose money for the business doing so. In other words, it is more profit to produce less and sell for more, If you go beyond that point then the associated production costs (time, labor, overhead) will stack up faster than excess supply is being produced. Now, since there is more supply the cost of the goods/services goes down, meaning you need to sell this stuff for a lower price. This cuts into your profit margin, so no self-respecting company will do so.

A socialist economy combats this by putting more money into the hands of workers, which means that they have more resources to buy the things they want or need. This flattens the demand curve because now people can spend more and would be willing to do so. This of course means that a higher production is more profitable than a lower production at a higher price.

Debater123

Happy_Killbot said:

Debater123 said:

anarchist100 said:

@MichaelElpers
I've heard it called libertarian socialism.

The two terms contradict each other.

No, they don't. Socialism doesn't mean "govn't contr'l" no matter how many rubes assert that is the case. You can have a socialist state with no government whatsoever, in this case it's just like anarcho-capitalism except that every business is run democratically and jointly owned by the workers.

'except that every business is run democratically and jointly owned by the workers.' (This is anarcho-syndicalism btw, NOT socialism) Can you make a business you own yourself, not one owned by the employees?

'Socialism doesn't mean "gov't control" no matter how many rubes assert that is the case.' https://socialism.fandom.com/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

"bUt A dIcTaToRsHiP iSn'T gOvErNmEnT cOnTrOl" my a.s.s.

Debater123

anarchist100 said:

@Debater123
Do you think anarcho-capitalism is the only real anarchism?

Yes.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot ;

Socialism doesn't involve stealing? Then tell me how you are going to get all these businesses to just share all of their surplus to the workers, who by the way didn't come up with the idea to start the business, put their financial lives on the line to start it, and didn't build or buy the equipment needed so that the work actually produces a product. If you're not stealing it then you must be creating all new businesses.
Businesses don't steal from the worker in capitalism. Theyve created a product that actually makes your labor useful in the free market. You agree to the wage and if you don't like it you can start up a business just like they did.

Also I'd love to see how you expect to get similar production, and competition when you drive away most of the incentive for creating new businesses. Where are your new products coming from? I guess random workers are just going to drop easy living they have in one company in order to create a business where they'll have to share all the profits again. Why would you take that risk?

If you created more supply then demand you would be inefficient. You said it yourself the costs would pile up. Ultimately that additional cost would be passed down to the consumer or you would be out of business and the product wouldn't be created at all.

Happy_Killbot

@Debater123 ;

(This is anarcho-syndicalism btw, NOT socialism) Can you make a business you own yourself, not one owned by the employees?

No, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-socialism are distinct even though they share many characteristics, such as a lack of centralized government control and instead assert that a country should be run by workers. The major difference is that anarcho-syndicalism is a movement where workers unions are in control, and in anarcho-socialism it is where cooperatives and common ownership are the status quo. There is significant overlap between the two, but they are distinct.

'Socialism doesn't mean "gov't control" no matter how many rubes assert that is the case.' https://socialism.fandom.com/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

"bUt A dIcTaToRsHiP iSn'T gOvErNmEnT cOnTrOl" my a.s.s.

That's not the kind of socialism we are talking about here, that's the Trump flavor. You are conflating terms here.

The type of socialism we are talking about doesn't have a dictator. It is strictly democratic.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot. If energy co-ops work or any other form of socialist business model works, in a free market capitalist society they will inevitably and naturally occur because that is the way to do it.
But you were the one who socialist communities can't stack up to the competition.

Debater123

Happy_Killbot said:

@Debater123 ;
(This is anarcho-syndicalism btw, NOT socialism) Can you make a business you own yourself, not one owned by the employees?
No, anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-socialism are distinct even though they share many characteristics, such as a lack of centralized government control and instead assert that a country should be run by workers. The major difference is that anarcho-syndicalism is a movement where workers unions are in control, and in anarcho-socialism it is where cooperatives and common ownership are the status quo. There is significant overlap between the two, but they are distinct.
'Socialism doesn't mean "gov't control" no matter how many rubes assert that is the case.' https://socialism.fandom.com/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat

"bUt A dIcTaToRsHiP iSn'T gOvErNmEnT cOnTrOl" my a.s.s.
That's not the kind of socialism we are talking about here, that's the Trump flavor. You are conflating terms here.

The type of socialism we are talking about doesn't have a dictator. It is strictly democratic.

'The type of socialism we are talking about doesn't have a dictator. It is strictly democratic.' In this 'democratic' system can we vote to have capitalism instead of socialism?

'That's not the kind of socialism we are talking about here, that's the Trump flavor. You are conflating terms here.' It's the Marx flavor.

'No' So anarcho-syndicalism ceases to exist when I chose to lead my own business rather than the employees leading it?

Happy_Killbot

@MichaelElpers ;

Socialism doesn't involve stealing? Then tell me how you are going to get all these businesses to just share all of their surplus to the workers, who by the way didn't come up with the idea to start the business, put their financial lives on the line to start it, and didn't build or buy the equipment needed so that the work actually produces a product.

That's really simple: The workers put their financial lives on the line to start it, and built or bought the equipment needed so that the work actually produces a product.

In a capitalist society, the people who did do all of that steal surplus from the workers who actually produce.

Businesses don't steal from the worker in capitalism. Theyve created a product that actually makes your labor useful in the free market. You agree to the wage and if you don't like it you can start up a business just like they did.

Yeah, let's pretend like that's how things work. Not everyone has access to capital resources needed to start a business, only the capitalist class does. People agree to work because they don't have the opportunity to create a new business, and this status-quo is protected by the government through bureaucracy, tax cuts, corporate lobbying, and laws that support big business.

If you created more supply then demand you would be inefficient. You said it yourself the costs would pile up. Ultimately that additional cost would be passed down to the consumer or you would be out of business and the product wouldn't be created at all.

Not exactly. The difference is where the excess profit goes.

So lets say we have 2 companies, C and S (Capitalist, Socialist) where C is owned by a single individual, and S is owned jointly by the employees. Other than this assume the companies are functionally identical. To make the math easy, say they have 100 employees and they both make $100 million after paying for overhead, tax, etc.

So, company C now has to pay his employees, say $100k on average, so in total they get paid $10 million, and the owner gets the rest $90 million.

Company S on the other hand distributes the money evenly, so each employee gets $1 million.

since the employees have more money in company S, they can buy more stuff just because they have more money so less people starve because more people have money they can use to buy things they need.

If energy co-ops work or any other form of socialist business model works, in a free market capitalist society they will inevitably and naturally occur because that is the way to do it.
But you were the one who socialist communities can't stack up to the competition.

That's not going to happen though, because the government doesn't allow it by creating laws, regulations, and a social environment that makes it less acceptable. All the government hostility towards anything "left" ensures that it will not be, because there are people like yourself who are opposed to it by their direction.

Happy_Killbot

@Debater123 ;

In this 'democratic' system can we vote to have capitalism instead of socialism?

In our current system can we vote to have socialism instead of capitalism?

So anarcho-syndicalism ceases to exist when I chose to lead my own business rather than the employees leading it?

"lead" is kind of a bad choice of words here. A socialist system can still have businesses with leaders, they would just be democratically elected rather than cronies of government officials like in our current system.

Debater123

Happy_Killbot said:

@Debater123 ;
In this 'democratic' system can we vote to have capitalism instead of socialism?
In our current system can we vote to have socialism instead of capitalism?
So anarcho-syndicalism ceases to exist when I chose to lead my own business rather than the employees leading it?
"lead" is kind of a bad choice of words here. A socialist system can still have businesses with leaders, they would just be democratically elected rather than cronies of government officials like in our current system.

'In our current system can we vote to have socialism instead of capitalism?' Technically yes.
You also avoided the question.

Also, incase you meant the second thing that you could've meant (the first I responded to above).
No, in the system you suggested, can we vote to have capitalism over socialism.

'"lead" is kind of a bad choice of words here. A socialist system can still have businesses with leaders, they would just be democratically elected rather than cronies of government officials like in our current system.' So then, I'm forced to let employees effectively rule my company rather than me, since they decide if I should stay, rather than the founder, creator, and leader.

Happy_Killbot

@Debater123 ;

Technically yes.
You also avoided the question.

I think I answered it effectively albeit indirectly.

Also, incase you meant the second thing that you could've meant (the first I responded to above).
No, in the system you suggested, can we vote to have capitalism over socialism.

I highly doubt anyone would do that, because it's like voting to have a $100,000 oer year job vs a $1,000,000 per year same job. Real hard choice, I know.

So then, I'm forced to let employees effectively rule my company rather than me, since they decide if I should stay, rather than the founder, creator, and leader.

In socialism, the workers are the founder, creator, and owner.

MichaelElpers

@Happy_Killbot
"That's really simple: The workers put their financial lives on the line to start it, and built or bought the equipment needed so that the work actually produces a product.
In a capitalist society, the people who did do all of that steal surplus from the workers who actually produce."

Didn't answer the question. How are you going to get businesses to agree to share the profit or give their businesses to the worker without stealing it from them?
The workers would not have a job and their work would not be valuable without the businessman starting the business.

"Yeah, let's pretend like that's how things work. Not everyone has access to capital resources needed to start a business, only the capitalist class does. People agree to work because they don't have the opportunity to create a new business, and this status-quo is protected by the government through bureaucracy, tax cuts, corporate lobbying, and laws that support big business."

Poor people start businesses all the time. If you want to talk about additional bureaucracy you can thank democrat policies; socialism would only add to it. The largest corporations support democrats because of this.

You also never answered how you are going to start and create new businesses under socialism. If people are making that all that extra profit you are talking about what incentivizes them to take a risk to start a new business? Why would they leave a company and risk their financial livlihood when they are going have to share and earn a similar profit?

Also, I'm curious what happens in socialism when the business you have shares in fails? Do they share the risk and liability like current businessman today? Are they out of money and out of work, or can they just force there way into another business and take a share of the profits?

Your company C and S had to assume the companies would behave identically. The issue is your socialist company would go out of business because they are not following the supply/demand of the free market. When the more efficient capitalist business comes along that follows sound business models, company S is finished and all the workers are make nothing.

"That's not going to happen though, because the government doesn't allow it by creating laws, regulations, and a social environment that makes it less acceptable. All the government hostility towards anything "left" ensures that it will not be, because there are people like yourself who are opposed to it by their direction."

What laws are there from preventing multiple people from starting a business and sharing the profits? Your just making stuff up. I'm opposed to the direction of the "left" because in order to make your socialist utopia you have to create rules and regulations that require people to only do things your way, the socialist way. You said it yourself socialism can't be implemented in the U.S. because there would be excess competition. I am not preventing you from starting a business based in your socialist principles, however you want to prevent me from using capitalist ones, and that is the big difference.

Debater123

Happy_Killbot said:

@Debater123 ;
Technically yes.
You also avoided the question.
I think I answered it effectively albeit indirectly.
Also, incase you meant the second thing that you could've meant (the first I responded to above).
No, in the system you suggested, can we vote to have capitalism over socialism.
I highly doubt anyone would do that, because it's like voting to have a $100,000 per year job vs a $1,000,000 per year same job. Real hard choice, I know.
So then, I'm forced to let employees effectively rule my company rather than me, since they decide if I should stay, rather than the founder, creator, and leader.
In socialism, the workers are the founder, creator, and owner.

'I highly doubt anyone would do that because it's like voting to have a $100,000 per year job vs a $1,000,000 per year same job. Real hard choice, I know.' You avoided the question, can I, vote to change the system from, a socialist one, to a capitalist one. The reasons I do so are irrelevant.

'In syndicalism, the workers are the founder, creator, and owner.' No, most of the time the individual innovates and creates jobs, rather than collectives.

Furthermore, stop trying to predict what might happen in your romanticized version of syndicalism, since there is no reason to suggest that workers might make more companies than other people today.
And tell me, if some workers were to make a company, a group of them, let's say 5, they would be forced to hand over their company to their dozen or so employees, and would simply become common workers in the company, rather then actually owning the company they created.

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Dallas rescinds plan to prioritize COVID vaccines for vulnerable areas

In this Debate

All lives DO matter.

Debate Information

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Arguments

COMMENT HAS BEEN BANNED

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch