Bill Gates, not as benevolent as he likes to portray himself

[Darth Yan]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ztVMib1T4T4

If you were any more full of shit you’d explode. Your entire argument in the decolonization thread was empty platitudes and saying that assuming that not everyone would abide by whatever genius settlement was proposed was racist (as was the idea that old tribal tensions might explode into violence.) you openly misrepresented Broomstick’s position and than lied about it because she wouldn’t address that bundjalung nonsense while you were still bitching about it 14 pages on.

You aren’t nuanced. You think “White Western bad non white non western good”. You ignore that while communist idealogy might have been discussed at its core no the communist manifesto IS there. You ignore how many economic powerhouses have communist ELEMENTS while those that went full communist inevitably collapsed or wound up incorporating capitalist ideals.

You are not an intellectual. You’re an idiot

Learn to use quote, crybaby pisspants.

Again, I'm not interested in relitigating the decolonization thread here. If you want to, start one, otherwise, shut the fuck up. If you think it's evident that I think 'White Western bad non white non western good', prove it. It should be easy enough if you feel confident advancing the claim - or is this another of your assertions that you'll refuse to defend, all while squalling about how other people 'misrepresent' and 'dodge' and 'evade'. Hey, here's an idea - maybe that's your own projection issues coming out because you're an incompetent debater.

Let's consider point two. Do I ignore that the communist manifesto exists? No - and you'd be hard pressed to show otherwise. My position is this: The communist manifesto is a pamphlet that was hurried off to spread the ideas during a year of revolutionary fervour, not the sum of all Marxist thought. It is expressly contradicted elsewhere in Marx's work in places and it's widely acknowledged by both pro- and anti-Marxists that it's really not the best guide to Marxism of any stripe - any claim of which I'm happy to back up. Your position seems to boil down to 'yeah but it exists and therefore because of [...] (which you don't show or prove) it is the best summation of marxism and therefore Darth Wong's critique of it is all that I need to point to'. Nor do I ignore, as you assert, that 'many economic powerhouses have communist elements [but full communism always fails]. Again, you'd be hard pressed to show where I do, but I get the sense that inserting arguments into your opponents mouths is a vital part of your argumentative style, crybaby pisspants. I again wonder if your screeching about ignorance and ignoring things is projection from your own manifest failings as a thinker.

You are not an intellectual. You are a crybaby pisspants, and if you tried any of the nonsense you try here in one of my classes, you'd be laughed out of the room and given a fail grade - or quite possibly taken aside to be asked what help you need because something must be going wrong for you. I can only hope the standard of your academic work was higher, because otherwise that communist professor's judgment is highly questionable and I hate when that happens. It devalues every other higher education degree when fuckwit muppets get handed high grades they don't earn.

Oh FUCK YOU I earned my grades fair and square.

I'm not a good debater, no. I acknowledge that. But I've observed you and no. You aren't honest either. Broomstick MORE than made mincemeat of you in the decolonization thread (Which I'm not reopening) and your arguments were quite frankly pathetic.

As for the new post you've added, I don't know enough about Australia but the nordic countries, Japan, France, the UK etc they all combine socialist elements with capitalism. Government health care for instance. That works wonders, certainly more so than the nightmare we have in the US. Same with Canada. Thing is they understand that going full socialist is stupid.

Uh my professor openly owned the communism label. She was and probably still is PROUD to be called that. Thing is she was also highly intelligent and fair. I made clear I disagreed with her and she still gave me a high score in class and was willing to act as a reference.

Uh, who cares? All you’re doing is claiming some professor gave you a high grade. Thats just appeal to authority and no substitute for you not making any winning arguments.

Indeed if you understood the school system better you’d realize thick-skulled students like you have to be given high scores they don’t deserve, otherwise they might have their evaluations dragged down. Its what happen when you let whining be a substitute for critical thinking.

My point was that unlike loomer she was intellectually honest and didn't write off people who disagreed with her. That's all

[Zinegata]

Lol, no. Giving you a high grade doesn’t mean she’s intellectually honest. It could just mean she doesn’t want the headache of a Shapiro-wannabe complaining about her “communist” class, and you’re too full of yourself to realize this was basically a bribe to avoid controversy.

Really that you make the comparison is already a losing argument, and shows your own need for validation.

[Darth Yan]

Lol, no. Giving you a high grade doesn’t mean she’s intellectually honest. It could just mean she doesn’t want the headache of a Shapiro-wannabe complaining about her “communist” class, and you’re too full of yourself to realize this was basically a bribe to avoid controversy.

Really that you make the comparison is already a losing argument, and shows your own need for validation.

Please. I'm hardly "a shapiro wannabe." I AGREE with the idea that pure capitalism is garbage for fucks suck and while I disagreed with her as a teacher she was fantastic and made a lot of legitimate points. Most of my posting history on this forum has been arguing from a liberal standpoint so go to hell with the insinuation that I'm secretly a conservative.

[His Divine Shadow]

As for the new post you've added, I don't know enough about Australia but the nordic countries, Japan, France, the UK etc they all combine socialist elements with capitalism. Government health care for instance. That works wonders, certainly more so than the nightmare we have in the US. Same with Canada. Thing is they understand that going full socialist is stupid.

The nordic countries are actually a good example of why you can't tame capitalism and it's stupid to think that it can ever be done.

Up until the 1980s the trend was moving towards a more socialist society but in the 1980s the world changed for the worse, Reagan and Thatcher and all that poison. Sweden in 1980 was the worlds most equal society in terms of income disparity, today Sweden is the the USA lite of the nordic countries and has suffered decades of privatization and liberalization and is the OECD country with the fastest growing inequality and the wealth of the country is ever further concentrated into fewer hands and the biggest cities, resulting in the same populist parties blaming immigrants and whatnot.

And the same thing has happened in the other countries too and they all have their own populist parties taking over. Today our societies are feeling the grind of capitalism and the results of the past decades of liberalization, we're cutting and cutting away at our welfare state, we keep on finding ways to give more money to the rich and they keep moving their money to tax paradises while small towns go under and hospitals close. This is the result of trying to tame capitalism with socialist policies. It's a monster and cannot be contained, even if a country manages to go as far as Sweden did it can still backslide massively and it has in every western liberal democratic society.

The only reason the nordic countries today are still considered the best places to live is because we've had so much further to fall than other countries, but we're on a downwards slide as well thanks to capitalism. Heading straight to our populist parties getting majorities in the next election and becoming the biggest parties.

[Zinegata]

Please. I'm hardly "a shapiro wannabe." I AGREE with the idea that pure capitalism is garbage for fucks suck and while I disagreed with her as a teacher she was fantastic and made a lot of legitimate points. Most of my posting history on this forum has been arguing from a liberal standpoint so go to hell with the insinuation that I'm secretly a conservative.

Lol, I called you a Shapiro wannabe because you keep shooting off your mouth with non-existent chains of causality. And that’s because Shapiro’s a mentally deranged conspiracy nut.

And yet as expected you try and pretend your political views excuse you from being an idiot.

Thats exactly why I pointed out that bringing up your “communist” teacher was just bad appeal to authority and labelling exercises. Its no different when Shapiro acts like a nutjob, accusing the BBC of being lefty... without realizing the host he was talking to was an editor for one of Murdoch’s conservative papers.

[Darth Yan]

As for the new post you've added, I don't know enough about Australia but the nordic countries, Japan, France, the UK etc they all combine socialist elements with capitalism. Government health care for instance. That works wonders, certainly more so than the nightmare we have in the US. Same with Canada. Thing is they understand that going full socialist is stupid.

The nordic countries are actually a good example of why you can't tame capitalism and it's stupid to think that it can ever be done.

Up until the 1980s the trend was moving towards a more socialist society but in the 1980s the world changed for the worse, Reagan and Thatcher and all that poison. Sweden in 1980 was the worlds most equal society in terms of income disparity, today Sweden is the the USA lite of the nordic countries and has suffered decades of privatization and liberalization and is the OECD country with the fastest growing inequality and the wealth of the country is ever further concentrated into fewer hands and the biggest cities, resulting in the same populist parties blaming immigrants and whatnot.

And the same thing has happened in the other countries too and they all have their own populist parties taking over. Today our societies are feeling the grind of capitalism and the results of the past decades of liberalization, we're cutting and cutting away at our welfare state, we keep on finding ways to give more money to the rich and they keep moving their money to tax paradises while small towns go under and hospitals close. This is the result of trying to tame capitalism with socialist policies. It's a monster and cannot be contained, even if a country manages to go as far as Sweden did it can still backslide massively and it has in every western liberal democratic society.

The only reason the nordic countries today are still considered the best places to live is because we've had so much further to fall than other countries, but we're on a downwards slide as well thanks to capitalism. Heading straight to our populist parties getting majorities in the next election and becoming the biggest parties.

I'll take your word for it.

[loomer]

Oh FUCK YOU I earned my grades fair and square.

I'm beginning to have my doubts about that, unless your degree was in something other than history - but then, you wouldn't claim to be a student of history if that was the case, would you? Or did you intend to deflect demands for proof with 'I'm a student of history (in that I read wikipedia articles sometimes and watch time team)'? Or, being charitable, have you studied history like I have, where you've engaged with historiographical pursuits purely out of love of the subject on your own time and went into law instead because of the better employment opportunities?

Either way, I know I certainly wouldn't pass if my academic work even passingly resembled the inane bullshit you vomit forth, with its unbacked arguments, logical fallacies, and complete ignorance of the subject matter. I also know I wouldn't pass a student whose work does, at least not at anything above a mid-primary school level.

I'm not a good debater, no. I acknowledge that. But I've observed you and no. You aren't honest either. Broomstick MORE than made mincemeat of you in the decolonization thread (Which I'm not reopening) and your arguments were quite frankly pathetic.

Whine whine whine, crybaby pisspants. Keep talking shit about an issue you refuse to debate. As for Broomstick? I certainly wasn't convinced by her arguments, and I don't think anyone but you was either. If, as you acknowledge, you're not a good debater, perhaps you also lack the knowledge and awareness to decide what constitutes a good argument?

As for the new post you've added, I don't know enough about Australia but the nordic countries, Japan, France, the UK etc they all combine socialist elements with capitalism. Government health care for instance. That works wonders, certainly more so than the nightmare we have in the US. Same with Canada. Thing is they understand that going full socialist is stupid.

I'm sure you can point to the distinction between 'communist elements' and 'socialist elements', right? The different philosophies involved in democratic socialism as opposed to communism? The different ideological basis, theories, and practices? I'm sure you can pinpoint which parts are communist, which parts are socialist, and which parts are capitalist, right? I'm sure you aren't just throwing out the names of countries you've heard have some kind of socialist program, right?

You wouldn't just be talking shit again, would you, crybaby pisspants?

My point was that unlike loomer she was intellectually honest and didn't write off people who disagreed with her. That's all

I don't write people off for disagreeing with me. I do write off people like yourself, but that's not because you have the temerity to have a different opinion. It's because you're a gutless little wonder who talks shit but won't actually stand your corner - a slimy little wriggler who shits themself in public and cries 'look, I am the Smart!!'. You won't justify your positions, defend them, do anything but vomit your bullshit all over everyone else

I actually welcome disagreement. It's why I'm happy to relitigate decolonization in an appropriate thread, even with you, crybaby pisspants, or to debate the place of revised marxist and marxist-influenced theory in the coming century of upheavals. The epistemological framework I use in fact demands disagreement and difference be recognized and explored in the hopes of coming to understanding (though not necessarily consensus.) I know those are big words for you, crybaby pisspants, so I'll try and simplify it: My way of thinking about things is okay with people not agreeing and even likes it, and wants to understand how others think too! It doesn't need everyone to say yes because sometimes that can't happen, but that's okay! Sometimes people just disagree, and so long as the reasons why are solid and it isn't a special case like 'and therefore rape is okay', then that disagreement is okay even if I think it's a bad thing to think.

[Darth Yan]

Oh FUCK YOU I earned my grades fair and square.

I'm beginning to have my doubts about that, unless your degree was in something other than history - but then, you wouldn't claim to be a student of history if that was the case, would you? Or did you intend to deflect demands for proof with 'I'm a student of history (in that I read wikipedia articles sometimes and watch time team)'? Or, being charitable, have you studied history like I have, where you've engaged with historiographical pursuits purely out of love of the subject on your own time and went into law instead because of the better employment opportunities?

Either way, I know I certainly wouldn't pass if my academic work even passingly resembled the inane bullshit you vomit forth, with its unbacked arguments, logical fallacies, and complete ignorance of the subject matter. I also know I wouldn't pass a student whose work does, at least not at anything above a mid-primary school level.

I'm not a good debater, no. I acknowledge that. But I've observed you and no. You aren't honest either. Broomstick MORE than made mincemeat of you in the decolonization thread (Which I'm not reopening) and your arguments were quite frankly pathetic.

Whine whine whine, crybaby pisspants. Keep talking shit about an issue you refuse to debate. As for Broomstick? I certainly wasn't convinced by her arguments, and I don't think anyone but you was either. If, as you acknowledge, you're not a good debater, perhaps you also lack the knowledge and awareness to decide what constitutes a good argument?

As for the new post you've added, I don't know enough about Australia but the nordic countries, Japan, France, the UK etc they all combine socialist elements with capitalism. Government health care for instance. That works wonders, certainly more so than the nightmare we have in the US. Same with Canada. Thing is they understand that going full socialist is stupid.

I'm sure you can point to the distinction between 'communist elements' and 'socialist elements', right? The different philosophies involved in democratic socialism as opposed to communism? The different ideological basis, theories, and practices? I'm sure you can pinpoint which parts are communist, which parts are socialist, and which parts are capitalist, right? I'm sure you aren't just throwing out the names of countries you've heard have some kind of socialist program, right?

You wouldn't just be talking shit again, would you, crybaby pisspants?

My point was that unlike loomer she was intellectually honest and didn't write off people who disagreed with her. That's all

I don't write people off for disagreeing with me. I do write off people like yourself, but that's not because you have the temerity to have a different opinion. It's because you're a gutless little wonder who talks shit but won't actually stand your corner - a slimy little wriggler who shits themself in public and cries 'look, I am the Smart!!'. You won't justify your positions, defend them, do anything but vomit your bullshit all over everyone else

I actually welcome disagreement. It's why I'm happy to relitigate decolonization in an appropriate thread, even with you, crybaby pisspants, or to debate the place of revised marxist and marxist-influenced theory in the coming century of upheavals. The epistemological framework I use in fact demands disagreement and difference be recognized and explored in the hopes of coming to understanding (though not necessarily consensus.) I know those are big words for you, crybaby pisspants, so I'll try and simplify it: My way of thinking about things is okay with people not agreeing and even likes it, and wants to understand how others think too! It doesn't need everyone to say yes because sometimes that can't happen, but that's okay! Sometimes people just disagree, and so long as the reasons why are solid and it isn't a special case like 'and therefore rape is okay', then that disagreement is okay even if I think it's a bad thing to think.

1.) I didn't formally study history no.

2.) Oh wait you're actually serious. Your arguments were PATHETIC.

3.) Hardly. And that you keep calling me that only shows that you're a man child.

4.) Somehow I doubt that. Again, your arguments in the decolonization when all the complex nuances were "it'll all work out. You're just a racist." Basically subscribing to the "noble savage" theory. So no. You DON'T want actual debate. If you did you wouldn't mischaracterize arguments like you did in that thread.

[Zinegata]

1.) I didn't formally study history no.

2.) Oh wait you're actually serious. Your arguments were PATHETIC.

3.) Hardly. And that you keep calling me that only shows that you're a man child.

4.) Somehow I doubt that. Again, your arguments in the decolonization when all the complex nuances were "it'll all work out. You're just a racist." Basically subscribing to the "noble savage" theory. So no. You DON'T want actual debate. If you did you wouldn't mischaracterize arguments like you did in that thread.

I rest my case that this is a case of a Shapiro-wannabe.

It's not about the left vs right, or communism vs capitalism at this point. It's just your typical young angry kid who can't accept that he's not as smart as he thinks he is; but nonetheless keeps appealing to non-existent "universal" political / economic beliefs in place of actually arguing.

He might as well go "You're a Nazi, I win" at this point, because the argument has basically already devolved to that level. Its unfortunately very typical of adrift young Americans.

[loomer]

1.) I didn't formally study history no.

Ah. So your argument strategy of 'I've studied history!' was a lie, then. That's cute.

2.) Oh wait you're actually serious. Your arguments were PATHETIC.

Pathetic, but you can't rebut or refute them, can you, crybaby pisspants? All you can do is go 'but but but human nature', without being able to demonstrate why it's human nature, why it's unchangeable, and why your frame of reference should be accepted as universal.

3.) Hardly. And that you keep calling me that only shows that you're a man child.

This doesn't look like you identifying the distinction between communist elements and socialist elements to me, crybaby pisspants. I guess you are just talking shit again, to absolutely no one's surprise.

4.) Somehow I doubt that. Again, your arguments in the decolonization when all the complex nuances were "it'll all work out. You're just a racist." Basically subscribing to the "noble savage" theory. So no. You DON'T want actual debate. If you did you wouldn't mischaracterize arguments like you did in that thread.

Yeah, the funny thing about mischaracterizing arguments is that it's what you're currently engaged in, since my proposal wasn't 'it'll all just magically work out' but rather that a dedicated, long term process of negotiation was necessary and there might even be a need for military peacekeeping in some areas - a very different argument entirely than 'if we like, just start the ball rolling, it'll all work out'. I also didn't call anyone a racist, though where someone made a racialized argument, I called those out as what they were. Again, your projection complex is showing, and yet again, you insist on talking about a thread where you lost, which you don't want to revisit in detail - no doubt because you know that if we went at it again I'd not just wipe the floor with you, I'd fucking sell your hide as the next Shamwow.

I'm going to issue you a challenge, crybaby pisspants: Either open a thread to debate it - if you're right and my arguments are pathetic you should have no problem defeating them, right? - or stop talking about it for five posts. Can you make it five whole posts without jerking yourself off over how your supreme grasp of human nature makes you an intellectual ubermensch and a communist once gave you high marks so that proves it, crybaby pisspants? I doubt it!

Oh, and one more time: Learn to use quote, crybaby pisspants.

[Darth Yan]

1.) I didn't formally study history no.

Ah. So your argument strategy of 'I've studied history!' was a lie, then. That's cute.

2.) Oh wait you're actually serious. Your arguments were PATHETIC.

Pathetic, but you can't rebut or refute them, can you, crybaby pisspants? All you can do is go 'but but but human nature', without being able to demonstrate why it's human nature, why it's unchangeable, and why your frame of reference should be accepted as universal.

3.) Hardly. And that you keep calling me that only shows that you're a man child.

This doesn't look like you identifying the distinction between communist elements and socialist elements to me, crybaby pisspants. I guess you are just talking shit again, to absolutely no one's surprise.

4.) Somehow I doubt that. Again, your arguments in the decolonization when all the complex nuances were "it'll all work out. You're just a racist." Basically subscribing to the "noble savage" theory. So no. You DON'T want actual debate. If you did you wouldn't mischaracterize arguments like you did in that thread.

Yeah, the funny thing about mischaracterizing arguments is that it's what you're currently engaged in, since my proposal wasn't 'it'll all just magically work out' but rather that a dedicated, long term process of negotiation was necessary and there might even be a need for military peacekeeping in some areas - a very different argument entirely than 'if we like, just start the ball rolling, it'll all work out'. I also didn't call anyone a racist, though where someone made a racialized argument, I called those out as what they were. Again, your projection complex is showing, and yet again, you insist on talking about a thread where you lost, which you don't want to revisit in detail - no doubt because you know that if we went at it again I'd not just wipe the floor with you, I'd fucking sell your hide as the next Shamwow.

I'm going to issue you a challenge, crybaby pisspants: Either open a thread to debate it - if you're right and my arguments are pathetic you should have no problem defeating them, right? - or stop talking about it for five posts. Can you make it five whole posts without jerking yourself off over how your supreme grasp of human nature makes you an intellectual ubermensch and a communist once gave you high marks so that proves it, crybaby pisspants? I doubt it!

Oh, and one more time: Learn to use quote, crybaby pisspants.

Okay. At this point we're going in circles. I concede.

[K. A. Pital]

If you haven’t studied history or actually read any of the philosophers and thinkers you are talking about, this discussion, much as the other one, will be going nowhere, Darth Yan. I suggest improving own knowledge of the matter before actually criticizing the arguments of another which are built upon knowledge.

The argument from so-called “human nature” is the most lousy form of argumentation if I ever saw one, and usually just say ignores human evolutionary biology and anthropology in favor of anti-scientific, that is, empirically undiscovered and untestable statements or the description of a particular human society as representing some nebulous “human nature” despite our long evolutionary history.

Back to the billionaires: very much like other large capitalists, their fortunes directly originate from exploitation of the workers, who collectively produce all the wealth and and all the products ever seen by mankind, and from the destructive activities of the market (disaster capitalism). Capital is also a representation of past collective labour, which was appropriated by one person or a narrow set of persons.

Wealth of such magnitude can only originate from exploitation and alienation of a huge collectively-made product, and is thus fundamentally immoral. Much like the wealth of a kingdom originated through the appropriations of the crown or military conquest, so has the wealth of billionaires been generated by the exploitation of either domestic or foreign workers.

The capitalist billionaire is a king of the company, an unchecked dictator, the owner of a massive system that is much like a feudal kingdom of old, but ita borders are defined not by land, but by the market shares of other kingdoms - other firms.

The only ethical and moral form of a company is a worker’s democracy, where workers collectively decide on the level of wages, production quotas, and so on. It is as a republic in politics relating to an absolute monarchy of the billionaire-controlled entity.

Thus to me billionaires, who allow no form of worker’s control, worker’s self-rule, and are hostile to unions, cannot be moral or good by the very above fact, just as absolute monarchs can have different qualities as people, but by virtue of absolute monarchy itself being a regressive and bad system, cannot be considered good, regardless of their kindness or low-key behavior.

Also kindness of the masters keeps the people blinded to the fact them system of masters and servants is abhorrent. Thus cruel billionaires are better than kind billionaires, much like kind and romanticized slaver owners are a problem, which impeded the realization that the system must go, as stated originally.

[Gandalf]

Oh fuck you. KA might be an idiot but he’s not actively engaged in treason or any attempt to topple a government. He wants communism to come in through peaceful means. It’s a stupid idea but perfectly harmless. McCarthy was against people having opinions and equated that with plotting.....which is stupid.

I said it before and I’ll say it again. Some socialist elements work. The postal service is socialist. Socialized medicine has also done wonders. Pure capitalism is indeed a destructive idealogy. But so is pure communism and you can’t seem to acknowledge that

Why did you answer zero of my questions and engage with none of the ideas presented? Did you bring anything to this anti-communistic tilt aside from incredulity and an essay that Darth Wong wrote ages ago criticising one text in the whole canon of literature surrounding communism?