A Study of Communism

[Malachi151]

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/study_communism.htm

[JAR]

Thanks for posting that Malachi151. In it, it says about communism, "Voicing of dissent is strictly controlled and severely punished" and "Forced or slave labor has been an integral part of the economy".

Those are two more reasons I don't like communism.

[Skeptic]

Why, yes, communism only killed 100,000,000 or so over half the globe. Let's give it another chance.

(yeah yeah yeah... Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc., etc., etc. were all not "real" communists. Funny, though, how no "real communists seem to exist...)

[Cain]

Genocide, slavery, and supporting tyrannical military dictatorships historically has nothing to do with capitalism. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. The Black Book of Capitalism? An absurd idea! The slave trade, holding blacks as property -- that's not "real" capitalism.

[Clancie]

A link to J Edgar Hoover's thoughts on Communism?

Lol. What's next, Malachi? Josef Stalin's authoritative analysis of what's wrong with the U.S. Constitution? :confused:

[Richard G]

As an advocat of communism, do you desire yourself to be one who is a slave of the state, or one of the rulling party?

[Skeptic]

Genocide, slavery, and supporting tyrannical military dictatorships historically has nothing to do with capitalism. Zero, zip, zilch, nada.

But that's not the point. Of course SOME capitalist societies were opressive... but most of them were not... and some of them became the freest, most advanced societies ever... and, in general, they became less and less so as time went by.

In contrast, EVERY SINGLE COMMUNIST SOCIETY THAT EVER EXISTED was repressive--and became worse and worse as time went by, since "the truth" (e.g., how "wonderful" communism is) had to be protected with more and more coersive measures as its absurdity became more and more apparent.

The Black Book of Capitalism? An absurd idea! The slave trade, holding blacks as property -- that's not "real" capitalism.

Actually, it isn't. Capitalism was the single most effective weapon AGAINST slavery. You see, in capitalistic societies, once the industrial revolution started, it become INEFFICIENT to own slaves, for a variety of complicated economical reasons. Modernization--with free workers--was far, far more efficient and better to all concerned.

THIS, not moral arguments, not idealism, is what caused the end of slavery: it cost more than it was worth to maintain it once your society became industrialized. So the evil, self-interested, opressive capitalists who live on the sweat of the workers (blah blah blah--I'm sure you can go on like this for hours) first stopped using slaves, and then outlawed slavery.

So, yes, slavery is not "real capitalism"... and the evidence for that is that CAPITALISM ENDED IT. If there was ever a communist country where "real communists" took over from all those nasty "unreal" ones who give communism a bad name with their gulags and execution squads, your analogy might have had a point... but that never happens, does it?

[Abdul Alhazred]

From each according to his ability == You'll work as hard as you can, whether you feel like it or not!

To each according to his need == No matter how hard you work, you'll never get more than just enough to keep you alive!

Such a system exisited in part of the United States before 1860, if you get my drift.

Jefferson Davis anticipated Karl Marx!

[Skeptic]

To each according to his need == No matter how hard you work, you'll never get more than just enough to keep you alive!

...unless you're a high party member, in which case the beurocracy will decide that you "need" a villa, unlimited caviar, your private limo, etc. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

The really sad thing is that communism, economically speaking, was SO inefficient, that the "opressed" middle-class worker in the capitalistic societies lived better, not only from the average communist worker, but better than the "connected" and "high level" communist beurocrat, as well.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Skeptic
But that's not the point. Of course SOME capitalist societies were opressive... but most of them were not... and some of them became the freest, most advanced societies ever... and, in general, they became less and less so as time went by.

Advanced capitalist societies, particularly in the case of the United States and Britain, have a tendency to internalize benefits while externalizing the very worst atrocities through imperialist war and aggression. Are you suggesting the United States was not oppressive? That we didn't have to kill tens of millions of Indians and steal their land (so much for respecting property rights). Or that this nation did not rely heavily on slave labor (so much for respecting individual rights). Didn't Ayn Rand frequently speak out against eating one's cake and having it too?

Actually, it isn't. Capitalism was the single most effective weapon AGAINST slavery. You see, in capitalistic societies, once the industrial revolution started, it become INEFFICIENT to own slaves, for a variety of complicated economical reasons.

What kind of hallucinogenic are you on? Slavery, at least in the United States, did not get weeded out through a market process. Of course there were economic factors but they had little to do with efficiency in the usual sense of the term. Getting rid of slavery, um, required considerable government intervention. History books fondly refer to this violent episode as the "Civil War".

So, yes, slavery is not "real capitalism"... and the evidence for that is that CAPITALISM ENDED IT.

:rolleyes:

Christ, you're stupid. "Capitalism" has also pretty much put an end to Fordism, so does that mean the organizing principles of business that were successful one hundred years ago can no longer be considered "real capitalism"?

Besides, more than a few Communists and Marxists quickly condemned the Soviet Union and other false revolutions. Marx's Hegelian-based conception of history progressed in explicit stages.

Hell, this elementary point was made evident to TIMES'S readers who stumbled across a column on cultural theorist and Marxist Terry Eagleton:

"If you want the most trenchant account of Stalinism you have to go to Marxism, not liberalism," he said. "Stalinism wasn't, from our point of view, radical enough. Long before Tiananmen Square the mainstream Marxists were saying the Soviet system is a travesty. You can't build Communism in backward conditions. You need international support. You need a society with a liberal democracy. Marx always saw socialism in continuity with middle-class democracy."

If there was ever a communist country where "real communists" took over from all those nasty "unreal" ones who give communism a bad name with their gulags and execution squads, your analogy might have had a point... but that never happens, does it?

:rolleyes:

Sometimes I don't even like using the terms "communism" and "capitalism". Look, communists today, at least the handful I've actually encountered, would completely disagree with the assumption of even "real communists" taking over. A genuine, or "real" if you prefer, communist system would have to necessarily enjoy widespread and popular support (unlike, oh say, the enclosure movement). Anything else contradicts basic principles of equality.

Is the United States a "real" capitalist country? Those who most often praise the virtues of the "free market" have a nasty tendency of being fanatical, reactionary statists quite in favor of increasing "big government's" capability to inflict violence on a mass scale.

Were self-proclaimed communist countries consistent with the enunciated principles of communism? Those same countries also called themselves people's democracies. I guess that means democracy is inextricably linked with gulags and death squads.

[NullPointerException]

Slavery isn't an evil institution unless it is based on race.

[Malachi151]

Obviously pretty much everyone in the thread missed the entire point. I'm not wasting my time in this forum of imbeciles anymore.

[Ed]

I'll get the door for you.

[Skeptic]

Didn't Ayn Rand frequently speak out against eating one's cake and having it too?

Indeed so. Which is why your hypocritical criticism of the "evils of capitalism" is so hollow.

You live all your life in the comfort of an advanced capitalistic country, enjoying all the benefits you claim it unfairly and violently acquired. You wouldn't consider for a second helping, let alone living in, any of those righteous, poor countries the US has supposedly violated. Yet you moan and whine about the "evils of capitalism".

Why? To end it? To give the money or land to those it was stolen from, in your view? To actually DO something against the "evils of capitalism" (as you see them)? God forbid, no: that would mean the end of your creature comforts, and would inconvenience you. The sole reason for your "evil of capitalism" nonsense is to make yourself feel superior to others as more "sensitive" and "compassionate".

[JAR]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Slavery isn't an evil institution unless it is based on race.
I disagree. I think it's always evil. Were you being sarcastic when you said that?

[Cain]

I love the personal attacks because it's a transparent (and instructive) demonstration of your utter inability to argue the facts.

It's also interesting as to how you repeat the phrase "evils of capitalism" no fewer than four times as though I had said it.

Nevertheless, I'll address your feeble-minded attempts to veer off topic in the order they were blathered:

You live all your life in the comfort of an advanced capitalistic country, enjoying all the benefits you claim it unfairly and violently acquired.

Yep, no question about that. I've benefited, especially for being white. Mea culpa. Now do you deny that these benefits are not the result of violence? Or was that violence somehow "fair" or "justified"?

You wouldn't consider for a second helping, let alone living in, any of those righteous, poor countries the US has supposedly violated.

I am not at all sure how you should know this. I can make two points, but only one of them is necessary.

1) Your above statement simply is not true.
2) More importantly, it's completely irrelevant.

Ah, we must also the US only "supposedly violated" those poor countries. That's quite a stretch. Most people I've spoken to -- even most conservatives -- acknowledge that the US has a nasty history (oh, but it's all in the past). Your qualification here fringes on lunacy.

Yet you moan and whine about the "evils of capitalism".

First, I don't recall whining or moaning. Second, it doesn't matter. Third, this is funny coming from a person who is quite possibly the shrillest poster on this board.

Why? To end it? To give the money or land to those it was stolen from, in your view?

Re-read my brief original comments. You might notice a couple of things, like, say, our own hypocrisy in criticizing the crimes carried out under the banner of communism. Our preferred system, our own country, is itself responsible for considerable violence and destruction. That's not too difficult to understand. There's no "supposedly" about it.

To actually DO something against the "evils of capitalism" (as you see them)? God forbid, no: that would mean the end of your creature comforts, and would inconvenience you. The sole reason for your "evil of capitalism" nonsense is to make yourself feel superior to others as more "sensitive" and "compassionate".

Even supposing that's true how does it undermine the observation our past atrocities If anything I've been too generous by emphasizing our dark history at the expense of highlighting current policies dedicated to insuring profits over people.

[JAR]

Cain, do you think that communism is better than capitalism, or that capitalism is equally as bad as communism? If you think the latter, what do you think is a good alternative to the two?

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Obviously pretty much everyone in the thread missed the entire point. I'm not wasting my time in this forum of imbeciles anymore.
See: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30036

In it you said: As usual, I'm just presenting the facts. What you make of them is up to you.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Obviously pretty much everyone in the thread missed the entire point. I'm not wasting my time in this forum of imbeciles anymore.
Malachi151, I suspect that you developed the habit of not telling people how you interpret the information that you post in threads because you fear that if people know how you interpret it, they will reject your interpretation.

[jj]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/special/study_communism.htm

Communism: (n) A religion, whose basic dogma asserts that human beings will do their best even if unrewarded for effort, that masqueraded as a "political philosophy" for much of the 20th century, resulting in the death of millions, if not billions of people, enormous and unremediable pollution, both chemical and nuclear, and that finally failed, destabilizing the largest populations on the planet.

Was there something else I needed to know?

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cain
Genocide, slavery, and supporting tyrannical military dictatorships historically has nothing to do with capitalism. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. The Black Book of Capitalism? An absurd idea! The slave trade, holding blacks as property -- that's not "real" capitalism.

If you go back far enough every society has done some pretty awful things. Awareness and discussion are what characterize the Western democracies.



So, let's go back a really long, long time. Every society and system of geovernment sucks. Now what? Expound on your worldview in some procductive way. You sound a bit like an ungreatful nihlist with no particularly useful ideas.

[c0rbin]

Cain, just going by this thread, I would say you are the ad-hominator here.

"Christ, you're stupid. " is a good one and it is not alone.

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed


If you go back far enough every society has done some pretty awful things. Awareness and discussion are what characterize the Western democracies.



So, let's go back a really long, long time. Every society and system of geovernment sucks. Now what? Expound on your worldview in some procductive way. You sound a bit like an ungreatful nihlist with no particularly useful ideas.


Now, Ed, we disagree entirely on a lot of political things, but I think you hit this one on the head. Cain and Malachi's selective memory and selective presentation suggest something about their agenda.

On the other hand, given the results, I can not understand how anyone can possibly believe in the religion of communism any more.

[Jet Grind]

I don't know whether Cain in a communist or not, but it seems to me that he's simply pointing out the hypocrisy that's usually present when the evils of communism are disucussed and the injustices of capitalism are ignored. I'm pretty much o his side here.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj



Now, Ed, we disagree entirely on a lot of political things, but I think you hit this one on the head. Cain and Malachi's selective memory and selective presentation suggest something about their agenda.

.

Really? I am pretty close to some people that might surprise you, it is the absolutist, knee jerk stuff that brings out my contrarian nature.

[Ed]

Originally posted by jj





On the other hand, given the results, I can not understand how anyone can possibly believe in the religion of communism any more.

Nor suggest a moral equivilance between the western democracies and communistic countries. Odd, self loathing is.

[Cain]

Cain, just going by this thread, I would say you are the ad-hominator here.

"Christ, you're stupid. " is a good one and it is not alone.

C0rbin, you're not very bright. That's a conclusion, not an argument. If I had just written "Christ, you're stupid," or simply said, "No, that's a poor argument because you're stupid," then you would be correct.

The definition of an ad hominem is attacking the person instead of the argument. There's nothing wrong with using vituperative language in addition to an argument in terms of rationality. Civility is another matter. @sshole.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

If you go back far enough every society has done some pretty awful things. Awareness and discussion are what characterize the Western democracies.

Yes, yes, and no. Even western democracies are reluctant to discuss their past crimes. When conservatives, for example, claim that France is quick to act pious about US imperialism and interventionism while forgetting their own recent past which included tyranny and support for tyrants, the critics are absolutely correct. Similarly, Noam Chomsky will compare column inches of coverage on East Timor against official enemies and offical crimes.

So, let's go back a really long, long time. Every society and system of geovernment sucks. Now what? Expound on your worldview in some procductive way. You sound a bit like an ungreatful nihlist with no particularly useful ideas.

First, the most obvious point is that my original comments served as a reference for comparison. Second, I live under this current government and we have a moral responsibilty -- both you and me -- to criticize atrocities carried out by our government. I mean, that's very basic. Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" spoke out against slavery and the Mexican War. He had directly benefited from previous crimes, so does that make him a hypocrite? If he's an apologist for similar crimes, then, yeah, of course. But that doesn't really speak directly to the Mexican War or slavery.

JJ writes:

Cain and Malachi's selective memory and selective presentation suggest something about their agenda.

[insert irony meter here]

How selective and agenda-driven for me to choose the reigning ideology for comparison.

On the other hand, given the results, I can not understand how anyone can possibly believe in the religion of communism any more.

Who is "believing in" or advocating communism?

Which relates to JAR's question:

Cain, do you think that communism is better than capitalism,

No; although, again, those terms do not seem to make much sense.

or that capitalism is equally as bad as communism?

No, but the same reservation above applies. If communism refers to Stalinism, the USSR, single party domination, central planning, and so on, then I reject that belief system.

If you think the latter, what do you think is a good alternative to the two?

I've discussed this rather extensively here, though I do not see the relevance to the direction of the current thread. See for instance my exchange with Victor D. in a thread about Einstien's essay on socialism.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Cain


Advanced capitalist societies, particularly in the case of the United States and Britain, have a tendency to internalize benefits while externalizing the very worst atrocities through imperialist war and aggression. Are you suggesting the United States was not oppressive? That we didn't have to kill tens of millions of Indians and steal their land (so much for respecting property rights). Or that this nation did not rely heavily on slave labor (so much for respecting individual rights). Didn't Ayn Rand frequently speak out against eating one's cake and having it too?


Actually people as a whole tend to accept good things on an internal basis and bad things on an external basis when it comes to themselves. We also have a habit of blaming others for internal faults while overlooking external factors. If my team wins a football game I credit mine and the other team members training. If we lose we say it's because we've never won aganst the other team. If I slip on the ice I say it's because of the ice and if you slip n it I say you are clumsy. That's how internal and external blame goes.

You mentioned slavery right after saying that we externalize our worst. But we never went to other nations and enslaved them. As such, slavery was an internal fault and not exported as you claimed.

If you wish to apply psychological/psychology factors to governments then please use them correctly.

State examples of US Imperialism. Where has the US moved to a war like state soley to gain control of other countries? Yes there are numerous cases where they wished to change things, including the ruling factors of other countries, but Imperialism suggests extending a nation's power through territorial acquisition. The US has been involved in other affairs but have we established ourselves in an authoritive manner in other countries? Puerto Rico is still self-ruled, as is Guam. Vietnam is their own country, Germany is the closest you could get to but we stayed out of re-unification and thus, alowed them to think for themselves with no US control. Well we helped with re-unification but have since had nothing to say that they had to abide by. And this was done as an attack against communism, as part of the cold war.

So we have established capitalism letting the others think for themselves and chose and communism taking and chosing for others as in West Berlin prior to re-unification

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cain, just going by this thread, I would say you are the ad-hominator here.

"Christ, you're stupid. " is a good one and it is not alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




C0rbin, you're not very bright.

:id:

[jj]

Originally posted by Ed


Really? I am pretty close to some people that might surprise you, it is the absolutist, knee jerk stuff that brings out my contrarian nature.

Well, Ed, I dunno, but you seemed to be supporting the present administration quite strongly, unless you've mastered more ambiguity than you intended.

Given the actions of this administration (and I don't mean the war in Iraq), it seems to me that there's an obvious problem. This administration scoffs at the constitution, and senior members of it incite hatred of atheists and people who aren't like them on a routine basis, never mind it was religious fanatacism just like their own that started the obvious destruction of everything boomers saved for.

Face it, look at this last "prescription benefit". Have you LOOKED at the terms? It is, simply put, "if you have more than what the government pays in needs, either you pay or you die". Insurance to cover 'prescriptiongap' is AGAINST THE LAW!

It's the easiest way for the 'X'ers like Shrub to get rid of us, just make sure we die due to a combination of overwork and lack of medical care.

[jj]

Originally posted by Troll
State examples of US Imperialism.

You're arguing with someone whose response to objections to his ad-hominem attacks is "you're not too bright", so don't hold your breath.

[Troll]

Originally posted by jj


You're arguing with someone whose response to objections to his ad-hominem attacks is "you're not too bright", so don't hold your breath.

I know, but the more examples of such claims the more people have to go on in ignoring his attempts to legitimize his posts. So let him try and fail again, it only helps the sane among us. ;)

[TillEulenspiegel]

Wow people still STUDY communism?
Well I guess that make sense , People still study san skrit and Latin and steam locomotives..all alos dead. Well to each his own.

[jj]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Wow people still STUDY communism?
Well I guess that make sense , People still study san skrit and Latin and steam locomotives..all alos dead. Well to each his own.

Yeah, but sanskrit, Latin, and steam locomotives all worked.

Communism, well, we should study it historically just so we don't forget what a crashing disaster it was.

[Cain]

Originally posted by Troll
[B]Actually people as a whole tend to accept good things on an internal basis and bad things on an external basis when it comes to themselves. We also have a habit of blaming others for internal faults while overlooking external factors. If my team wins a football game I credit mine and the other team members training.

As a comedian recently observed on a television special, the winning team in a football game credits the Lord while the losing team blames themselves. Just once he'd like to see a player cry, "Damn, Jesus made me fumble!" Consistency.

I understand your point though, and yes I'd agree that the tendency is natural and widespread. I mentioned modern-day France as an example, but you can substitute practically any nation state.

Here, though, self-criticism is construed as "self-loathing", which, to put it mildly, is f*cking idiotic.

Moreover,

You mentioned slavery right after saying that we externalize our worst. But we never went to other nations and enslaved them. As such, slavery was an internal fault and not exported as you claimed.

I was speaking about advanced (as in contemporary) "capitalist" society. That society -- our society -- was predicated on genocide and slavery.

If you wish to apply psychological/psychology factors to governments then please use them correctly.

State examples of US Imperialism. Where has the US moved to a war like state soley to gain control of other countries? Yes there are numerous cases where they wished to change things, including the ruling factors of other countries, but Imperialism suggests extending a nation's power through territorial acquisition. The US has been involved in other affairs but have we established ourselves in an authoritive manner in other countries?

In my last post I mentioned Thoreau's objections the Mexican War. Are you forgetting about the whole concept of Manifest Destiny? Imperialism understood in terms of establishing colonies died out after World War II. Current analysis, one view at least, sees the world in terms of a center and periphery. The ruling instititions -- WTO, World Bank, and IMF -- erect policies where traditional colonies (the global south) answer to their historical conquerers (the North). Thomas Friedman, the influential op-ed columnist for the _New York Times_, smitten with globalization, enthusiastically invokes the metaphor of the "Golden Straitjacket" because national policies are constrained by market pressures and the IMF.

______________________________

You're arguing with someone whose response to objections to his ad-hominem attacks is "you're not too bright", so don't hold your breath.

:rolleyes:

Once again: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

But if you insist, refer to any post that uses the word "woo woo". In some cases it's just an ad hominem while in most it's justified.

How am I guilty of ad hominem? Because I called somebody moron? Christ, you're dumb too.

In the absence of an actual argument, yes, it's ad hominem. Look again at my post to "Skeptic". Re-read the paragraph to C0rbin.

Or scrutinize the text within this partition.
______________________________

So let him try and fail again, it only helps the sane among us

:rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain
Here, though, self-criticism is construed as "self-loathing", which, to put it mildly, is f*cking idiotic.

Ahh, a solidly supported assertion buried in tons of actual evidence! NOT

It's "self-loathing" when you write obviously misleading, biased, and ill-constructed sentences suggesting that capitalistic society is anything near as bad as communism and communist societies have turned out to be.

No system is perfect.

That's not what you said.

You compared the behavior of the USA to that of what? Let's see, how many dead Ukranians? What pogroms? What bodies in Siberia? What death camps belonging to Pol Pot?

That is an obvious and patently absurd comparison, yet you are the one presenting it as though it is meaningful.


In the absence of an actual argument, yes, it's ad hominem. Look again at my post to "Skeptic". Re-read the paragraph to C0rbin.


:id:

You haven't presented any arguments yet, you simply are trying to rely on others' words without any indication of what or how you regard their meaning.

Could you be looking for an out after you and your idea is ridiculed to bits?

[Cain]

Ahh, a solidly supported assertion buried in tons of actual evidence! NOT

:rolleyes:

Oh my, JJ. You somehow manage to outdo yourself. The assertion of self-loathing, you know, the one Ed made, that's ad hominem. It impugns my motives without bothering to address the arguments. You earlier blathered something about an "agenda".

Interestingly, you never even bothered to answer my previous questions relating to these allegations of ad hominem on my part.

It's "self-loathing" when you write obviously misleading, biased, and ill-constructed sentences suggesting that capitalistic society is anything near as bad as communism and communist societies have turned out to be.

That is an obvious and patently absurd comparison, yet you are the one presenting it as though it is meaningful.

Go back to the original response in regards to 100,000,000 million deaths. So, suppose capitalism, is only responsible for 75 million. Is that okay?

How many Africans died on slave ships? How many Indians were slaughtered? If we're talking about "capitalism" versus "communism" we need not, and should not, confine ourselves to the United States. France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Britain and other european countries are themselves responsible for millions of deaths.

Ah, but: "No system is perfect."

You compared the behavior of the USA to that of what? Let's see, how many dead Ukranians? What pogroms? What bodies in Siberia? What death camps belonging to Pol Pot?

I cited America/the US as an example in a broader comparison.

"Genocide, slavery, and supporting tyrannical military dictatorships historically has nothing to do with capitalism. Zero, zip, zilch, nada. The Black Book of Capitalism? An absurd idea!"

You haven't presented any arguments yet, you simply are trying to rely on others' words without any indication of what or how you regard their meaning.

I'm not sure if you noticed, but "Skeptic's" initial post brings up the recuring problem of "real" communism. In parallel, I raised the problem of "real" capitalism.

Could you be looking for an out after you and your idea is ridiculed to bits?

Please stop, JJ. The obnoxious oversized text declaring "NOT" is just far too clever for me. I mean, you're even better at it than the sixth graders from a ten years ago. "Hey man, I'll give you a dollar. NOT! Haha." Your trenchant wit -- I'm not sure if my sensitive, self-loathing ego can handle much more. Where's my white flag? Please, please don't ridicule me to bits.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Cain:
How many Africans died on slave ships? How many Indians were slaughtered? If we're talking about "capitalism" versus "communism" we need not, and should not, confine ourselves to the United States. France, Belgium, Germany, Portugal, Spain, Britain and other european countries are themselves responsible for millions of deaths.

Were these European states really capitalist? And how many slaves and Indians died? And doesn't slavery predate capitalism in any case?

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Were these European states really capitalist? And how many slaves and Indians died? And doesn't slavery predate capitalism in any case?

How do you define capitalism?

In some definitions, capitalism has been around since the invention of money (= capital) - or longer, if you count barter economy.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Chaos:
How do you define capitalism?

In some definitions, capitalism has been around since the invention of money (= capital) - or longer, if you count barter economy.

Exactly. It could be argued that no country has acheived a purely capitalist system. I certainly wouldn't classify France as being a country that embraces the principles of capitalism.

Just because stuff is being bought, sold or exchanged doesn't necessarily mean that it's being done in a capitalist system. Look at agriculture.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Were these European states really capitalist? And how many slaves and Indians died? And doesn't slavery predate capitalism in any case?

I think we might be confusing human nature with "capitalism" here.

Just about every society/nation bordering another group has fought/enslaved its neighbours. That's "just" tribalism or some other less than desirable human traits.

Capiltalism, in it's trinity:
1) Opportunity/freedom
2) Rule of Law
3) Incentives to work/innovate
Seems to have fuelled an explosive increase in knowledge, living conditions, population etc compared to old (and not so old) feudal, heirachal and theistic societies.

You may say that "real" Communism hasn't been tried yet (and shouldn't be tainted with the failures of its rather more prolific evil twin) but until it has - and empirical evidence of it's performance has been shown - there will be no compelling reason to accord it any greater respectability. Certainly no reason to assume it can rival Capatilism - evidence please! Set up an enlightened commune and post us results!

Bottom line is that human nature is flawed. Everyone is not selfless, always rational, disinterested pacifists. The power of capitalism is that it takes your self interest (which classically is the stumbling block in collectivisation) and harnesses it as a productive force. When we come up with economic paradigms we need to remember that they will have to work with real difficult irrascible people, to date incorperating at least some elements of Capitalism into the economy seems to work best.

[Drooper]

"Capitalism", I hate that word it makes no sense, was the death of slavery.

In a market based economy, my preferred and more accurate terminology it doesn't make sense to own slaves.

Think about it. If you had to buy a slave, the price would equal its marginal contribution to output - a standard economic result. In effect, you would be paying the equivalent capitalised sum of all future wages you would pay to an alternative free worker.

There would be no financial benefit to you, plus you would then need to find the large capital sum needed to finance the purchase, rather than monthly or weekly wages out of your cashflow. Plus, you would bear the risk of loss through injury or death of the slave. Plus you would have the moral burden as well.

I would bet a penny to a pound that if you legalised slavery in somewhere like the US or UK tomorrow it would flop, simply for economic reasons.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cain


Oh my, JJ. You somehow manage to outdo yourself. The assertion of self-loathing, you know, the one Ed made, that's ad hominem. It impugns my motives without bothering to address the arguments. You earlier blathered something about an "agenda".


No, not an ad hominem in the least. It is simply an observation that, it appears, you impune the motives of your own society and view transgressions in a much different and critical light than you do others.

To do this with no sembalance of even handedness nor with any attempt at rational interpretation appears to me, at least, to indicate that you really do not like yourself very much at all and that it is important, for reasons unknown, to smash and denigrate that which is around you while, by your relative silence, giving others a pass.

This was simply an observation and completely judgement neutral. It does, however, describe a set on your part which makes rational discussion not really possible.

[c0rbin]

C0rbin, you're not very bright

I, like the moon, merely reflect the light of those around me. If I seem dim it is hardly my fault.

[Chaos]

Giz
Drooper

You do the same thing that Malachi has been accused of: you set the definition of "capitalism" in a way that discounts anything negative as "not really capitalism".


Capitalism didn´t just pop up in the 1800´s. I say that any economic system in which prices, wages, etc. are largely set by the market and people are - not counting a decent degree of taxation - allowed to keep what they earned and decide what they want to buy, is capitalism, i.e. any kind of market economy.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Chaos
Giz
Drooper

You do the same thing that Malachi has been accused of: you set the definition of "capitalism" in a way that discounts anything negative as "not really capitalism".


Capitalism didn´t just pop up in the 1800´s. I say that any economic system in which prices, wages, etc. are largely set by the market and people are - not counting a decent degree of taxation - allowed to keep what they earned and decide what they want to buy, is capitalism, i.e. any kind of market economy.

Not really. I'm quite happy to accept that a system with prices/supply set by the market and people allowed to keep (some) of their earnings is/exhibits capitalist features. (Whether prior to the 1800's the lack of the concept of limited liability, leading to easier - less risky - investment in stocks and shares, would have prevented the full utilisation of the potential of capital is another question).

The key points are that:
1) Just about every economic/political regime has done "bad things" (that's perhaps in the nature of humanity). Capitalism/Mercantalism and their associated societies are no exception (though obviously there are candidates out there for worse -ism). Was the bad that was done (slavery etc) a function of the strictures of capitalism or were they examples of a brutal and impoverished society behaving in a brutal impoverished way? Perhaps ll aspects of said societies should share in the blame not just proto-capitalism?

2) Capitalism has been associated with rising life expectancy, wealth, knowledge, population, literacy, culture all over the world. No other ism or paradigm or theology has ever acheived anything like as much. It sometimes seems like the 20th century (and our early 21st) is fill of woes but looking back through history this is a golden age (hopefully not the pinnacle though). The explosion of knowledge and wealth that created this situation was either capitalism or innovations and scientific advances made in symbiosis with it.

3) If you do have any other ism or paradigm or theology in mind, with examples, please share. Until then Capitalism, warts and all, is the only game in town.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain


Oh my, JJ. You somehow manage to outdo yourself. The assertion of self-loathing, you know, the one Ed made, that's ad hominem. It impugns my motives without bothering to address the arguments. You earlier blathered something about an "agenda".



If you don't like the facts, don't act that way. I do nothing but report the facts of the matter. If you don't like seeing yourself in the mirror, stop prancing in front of it.



Interestingly, you never even bothered to answer my previous questions relating to these allegations of ad hominem on my part.


What's to answer? "You're stupid" and other such pure insults are not any kind of discourse, they are ad-hominem attacks on your part, plain and simple. Your willful use of ad-hominem to REPLY to complaints about ad-hominem makes your nature quite clear.

Again, if you don' t like what you see in the mirror, go change into something civil.


Go back to the original response in regards to 100,000,000 million deaths. So, suppose capitalism, is only responsible for 75 million. Is that okay?


Cease forthwith your malicious misstating of my position. It is entirely unethical of you to suggest such fallacies, and beyond unethical to attempt to lay them at others feet when they've said no such thing.

It seems that you can't avoid dishonest straw men any more than you can avoid ad-hominems.


I cited America/the US as an example in a broader comparison.


No, you tried to create a controversy by making an unethical, false comparison between communism and its history of genocide and murder in the present day, and capitalism's misbehaviors on the way to growing up. The difference, of course, is that capitalism, which is at least marginally viable, was around long enough to grow up, and communism simply failed completely. Communism is dead, burnt on the fires of experiment. One could even argue that there is scientific evidence that communism fails, the experiment has been made, and the evidence is in. Communism does not work. Period.

Your "broader comparison" was a complete misrepresentation, and an unethical appeal to emotion.

Again, you're found ethically lacking

I'm not sure if you noticed, but "Skeptic's" initial post brings up the recuring problem of "real" communism. In parallel, I raised the problem of "real" capitalism.


You've done nothing of the sort. You've attempted to equate two different systems with entirely different histories. You're also confuting the actions of monarchies or other forms of government than democratic capitalisism by invovling other countries during the 1700's and 1800's, when they were not, in fact, primarily a "capitalistic" society, and you know that.

You've refused to address the pernacious nature of every society that's become "communist", and the human rights abuses that every such society has suffered from, and attempted to deflect attention from those obvious facts to the fact that other cultures can also be abusive.

Communism, once again, is an abject, total, and final failure as a governing idea. It's dead. Please attend the funeral, so that you may have some closure on this issue, and stop bothering us with ideas whose time never even came.


Please stop, JJ. The obnoxious oversized text declaring "NOT" is just far too clever for me. I mean, you're even better at it than the sixth graders from a ten years ago. "Hey man, I'll give you a dollar. NOT! Haha." Your trenchant wit -- I'm not sure if my sensitive, self-loathing ego can handle much more. Where's my white flag? Please, please don't ridicule me to bits.

Obviously, you are too immature. regardless of your age, to avoid ad-hominem.

I suggest that you return to kindergarten and learn some social behaviors from the teacher. If you're too old for that, go to a psychologist and get some help in learning something about social contracts.

[Cain]

Were these European states really capitalist?

Were they? Or were they pre-capitalist or mercantilist? If so, then by virtue of simple consistency, we must extend the same rules to investigating communist crimes. Was it "really" communism?

And how many slaves and Indians died?

I dunno. These estimates are always controversial. At least 10 million in the Atlantic slave trade. For Native Americans I've heard everything from 25 million to 100 million.

But consistency requires people give up a great deal if they insist on "Skeptic's" original claims. So, for instance, the United States could not have been a capitalist country from the beginning or even up until (at least) the end of the civil war. Is the US a capitalist country now? Was it a capitalist country back in the sixties and early seventies (with Nixon's price controls)? What about the thirties?

Adam Smith's objections to the colonies did not go against the idea of imperialism. He saw the markets as constrained by the fact that colonies supplied their mother countries rather than putting goods on an open market.

The tobacco of Maryland and Virginia, for example, by means of the monopoly which England enjoys of it, certainly comes cheaper to England than it can do to France, to whom England commonly sells a considerable part of it. But had France, and all other European countries been, at all times, allowed a free trade to Maryland and Virginia, the tobacco of those colonies might, by this time, have come cheaper than it actually does, not only to all those other countries, but likewise to England. The produce of tobacco, in consequence of a market so much more extensive than any which it has hitherto enjoyed, might, and probably would, by this time, have been so much increased as to reduce the profits of a tobacco plantation to their natural level with those of a corn plantation, which, it is supposed, they are still somewhat above.

And so on.

Noam Chomsky quotes from a later portion of the same book in _Year 501_:

"The savage injustice of the Europeans rendered an event, which ought to have been beneficial to all, ruinous and destructive to several of those unfortunate countries," Smith wrote, revealing himself to be an early practitioner of the crime of "political correctness," to borrow some rhetoric of contemporary cultural management. "To the natives...both of the East and West Indies," Smith continued, "all the commercial benefits, which can have resulted from those events have been sunk and lost in the dreadful misfortunes which they have occasioned." With "the superiority of force" the Europeans commanded, "they were enabled to commit with impunity every sort of injustice in those remote countries."

Smith does not mention the indigenous inhabitants of North America: "There were but two nations in America, in any respect superior to savages [Peru, Mexico], and these were destroyed almost as soon as discovered. The rest were mere savages" -- a convenient idea for the British conquerors, hence one that was to persist, even in scholarship, until the cultural awakening of the 1960s finally opened many eyes.

________________

"Capitalism", I hate that word it makes no sense, was the death of slavery.

:rolleyes:

Again, slavery -- at least in the United States -- did not die out via market competition. We fought a bloody civil war. Now, I suppose one could argue that the Northerners were the "real" capitalists, and therefore capitalism prevailed, but again, through war, not market processes. That requires a greater concession because then subsequent interventions can also be attributed to capitalism, from Guatemala (where the United Fruit Company ran into into problems) to Iran (where Britain and the US overthrew a democratically elected government to profit from the country's energy resources).

It is simply an observation that, it appears, you impune the motives of your own society and view transgressions in a much different and critical light than you do others.

First of all, it's more incumbent on the individual of a semi-democratic country to criticize her nation's policies. That's because we're responsible and we can make a difference. This is elementary intellectual honesty and moral sanity. Second, at what expense does this come? Have I at all denied the "transgressions" of so-called Communist societies? No, and we would not and should not euphemize -- as in the case of the word "transgressions" -- the extermination and atrocities carried out by a competing ideology (but we do because they're the formal enemy). We're in agreement.

I criticize Bush more than Blair. Is that because of some type of self-loathing, or because Bush is, I dunno, the President of the country where I reside? Or notice how few people create threads documenting Osama Bin Laden atrocities. I'm not one to dwell on his crimes because they're fairly well-known and we're all in total agreement.

You're attacking my motives, and that's a simple ad hominem.

To do this with no sembalance of even handedness nor with any attempt at rational interpretation appears to me, at least, to indicate that you really do not like yourself very much at all and that it is important, for reasons unknown, to smash and denigrate that which is around you while, by your relative silence, giving others a pass.

:rolleyes:

Yes, I have been relatively silent on Hilter's crimes. He basically murdered upwards of 11-12 million people (within a generation, not over the course of hundreds of years). That must mean I've given Hitler a pass.

But notice that when we criticize the Soviet Union or Germany or Islamo-fascism, we're not giving the US a pass. Further notice that when someone -- oh say, me -- even mentions the US's widespread and undeniable crimes it's met with incompetent and hysterical reaction, denial, and apologia; or focuses on the person rather than the argument. Ah, but I'm the one blindly overlooking murder.

You're such a clown.

_____________________________

If you don't like the facts, don't act that way. I do nothing but report the facts of the matter. If you don't like seeing yourself in the mirror, stop prancing in front of it.

Another vacuous statement. Anyone could say this to anybody and it would still be meaningless. "I'm right and you're wrong."

What's to answer? "You're stupid" and other such pure insults are not any kind of discourse, they are ad-hominem attacks on your part, plain and simple. Your willful use of ad-hominem to REPLY to complaints about ad-hominem makes your nature quite clear.

Again, if you don' t like what you see in the mirror, go change into something civil.

Once more you've completely failed to address what I've said on these matters. An ad hominem, to repeat, is attacking the person instead of the argument. Attacking an argument, and then concluding the person is a moron, is not fallacious. You consistently fail to rebut this point.

You quoted this line of text:

Go back to the original response in regards to 100,000,000 million deaths. So, suppose capitalism, is only responsible for 75 million. Is that okay?

And then blathered this non-response:

Cease forthwith your malicious misstating of my position. It is entirely unethical of you to suggest such fallacies, and beyond unethical to attempt to lay them at others feet when they've said no such thing.

It seems that you can't avoid dishonest straw men any more than you can avoid ad-hominems.

That's quite remarkable considering I never stated your position. This is commonly known as irony.

No, you tried to create a controversy by making an unethical, false comparison between communism and its history of genocide and murder in the present day, and capitalism's misbehaviors on the way to growing up.

Remarkable. Communism has a history of genocide and murder (which I don't deny), but capitalism merely "misbehaves" as a sort of adolescent phase.

The difference, of course, is that capitalism, which is at least marginally viable, was around long enough to grow up, and communism simply failed completely. Communism is dead, burnt on the fires of experiment. One could even argue that there is scientific evidence that communism fails, the experiment has been made, and the evidence is in. Communism does not work. Period.

Your "broader comparison" was a complete misrepresentation, and an unethical appeal to emotion.

Again, you're found ethically lacking.

And of course I've never once argued for your Communism as an alternative. But for capitalism we can excuse millions of deaths, genocide, murder and so on. Growing pains. The Soviet Union existed , for what, a mere seventy years? Yet we would (rightly) immediately reject any argument to keep such a system in place longer in the desperate hope of achieving the final stage. Market driven domination and exploitation, which if it persisted for one hundred years, is also a stepping stone, but excusable.

You've done nothing of the sort. You've attempted to equate two different systems with entirely different histories. You're also confuting the actions of monarchies or other forms of government than democratic capitalisism by invovling other countries during the 1700's and 1800's, when they were not, in fact, primarily a "capitalistic" society, and you know that.

No I don't "know that" because no one has really taken the time to define capitalism. And, again, if that's not "real" capitalism, then consistency requires we extend the opportunity to Marxists and communists and others to say the Soviet Union was not "really" communist. See above quote by Eagleton, or talk to any Marxist.

You've refused to address the pernacious nature of every society that's become "communist", and the human rights abuses that every such society has suffered from, and attempted to deflect attention from those obvious facts to the fact that other cultures can also be abusive.

On the contrary, I agree those human rights abuses were inexcusable and widespread. We're in agreement, so there's no sense wasting keystrokes for us to nod knowingly.

Communism, once again, is an abject, total, and final failure as a governing idea. It's dead. Please attend the funeral, so that you may have some closure on this issue, and stop bothering us with ideas whose time never even came

And of course I'm not defending communism (or "communism") as a competing model or an alternative.

Let's recap: you accused me of constructing a strawman and behaving unethically. In point of fact, you're wont to misconstrue, misattrubte, and misunderstand.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain
Let's recap: you accused me of constructing a strawman and behaving unethically. In point of fact, you're wont to misconstrue, misattrubte, and misunderstand.

You seem capable of doing nothing other than echoing others germane, accurate points about your behavior back at them in an inaccurate, insulting fashion.

I conclude that you have nothing to say, that you a malicious troll, and that you have the same ethics as an angry crocodile.

In the future, I suggest that you spew your venom somewhere where people aren't so practiced at dissecting it.

Once more, if you don't like the picture in the mirror, stop making faces.

[Troll]

properly quote people , folks

I can't tell who the hell anyone is quoting when you cock up the html and mix a bunch together.

Given that, I have to wonder how well you can actually make an argument.

Please, show who the counter argument is directed to by using the simplistic html options afforded you

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Obviously pretty much everyone in the thread missed the entire point. I'm not wasting my time in this forum of imbeciles anymore.

Oops. I guess there really isn't such a thing as mindreading after all!

You start a topic entitled "A Study of Communism," then post only a link in your opening post, WITH NO COMMENT.

And we missed the entire point. :rolleyes:

What? Were we supposed to talk about Debbie Latham?

(For everyone else, see last page of Malachi's OP link for Debbie Latham reference)

edited to add: For my input on the topic, see my sig.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Luke T.
edited to add: For my input on the topic, see my sig.

"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells"

??

:p

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


"it seems you don't believe how your enviroment of smells affects for a young ones.how many young girl are are in just involved in porn industry just because of lack of natural smells"

??

:p

Yes, precisely. Malachi and Cain are involved in communism just because of lack of hard monies

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Oops. I guess there really isn't such a thing as mindreading after all!

You start a topic entitled "A Study of Communism," then post only a link in your opening post, WITH NO COMMENT.

And we missed the entire point. :rolleyes:

What? Were we supposed to talk about Debbie Latham?

(For everyone else, see last page of Malachi's OP link for Debbie Latham reference)

edited to add: For my input on the topic, see my sig.

Hush, Luke, you're blowing the experimental design. It was really a test to see if we skeptics were all the real psychics and if we were hiding that in order to take advantage of our powers! I guess we weren't, since we couldn't divine Malachi's point from no words at all...

Do I really need the sarcasm marker here?:j2:

[Cain]

Originally posted by jj


You seem capable of doing nothing other than echoing others germane, accurate points about your behavior back at them in an inaccurate, insulting fashion.

I conclude that you have nothing to say, that you a malicious troll, and that you have the same ethics as an angry crocodile.

In the future, I suggest that you spew your venom somewhere where people aren't so practiced at dissecting it.

Once more, if you don't like the picture in the mirror, stop making faces.

Thank you for that characteristically idiotic and vacuous non-response.

The italicized part elicted laughter.

There's just one curious, nagging little fact: your consistent failure (not alone) to actually respond to the arguments at hand. Instead you attribute to me (falsely) straw men and ad hominem while, without a hint of humor or irony, doing exactly that.

Maybe glibly rattling off impressive sounding informal fallacies like "straw man" and "ad hominem" impresses co-workers at the water cooler, but you've only abused and misused the terms, and unsurprisingly failed to defend those assertions.

I'm getting sorta tired of cockslapping you.*
___________________________

Troll writes:
properly quote people , folks

I can't tell who the hell anyone is quoting when you cock up the html and mix a bunch together.

Given that, I have to wonder how well you can actually make an argument.

Please, show who the counter argument is directed to by using the simplistic html options afforded you

One question: who are you talking to? My posts are clearly subdivided. The author of each section, if not labelled, can be discovered without great difficulty.
___________________________
Yes, precisely. Malachi and Cain are involved in communism just because of lack of hard monies

I'm involved in communism? That's news.






*NOT!

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Chaos
Giz
Drooper

You do the same thing that Malachi has been accused of: you set the definition of "capitalism" in a way that discounts anything negative as "not really capitalism".


Capitalism didn´t just pop up in the 1800´s. I say that any economic system in which prices, wages, etc. are largely set by the market and people are - not counting a decent degree of taxation - allowed to keep what they earned and decide what they want to buy, is capitalism, i.e. any kind of market economy.

I do nothing of the sort.

I accept that in common usage, the term capitalism is applied to economies where the capital stock is owned privately.

It just happens that I think term is a bit of a nonsense, because the private versus collective ownership of capital is not the key issue of difference, and very confusing, because in any economy there will be a stock of capital and it will be owned, unltimately, by the people.

[daenku32]

Doing ANYTHING in order to gain power or wealth, is capitalism.

So Stalin and Pol Pot etc were really Capitalists. They killed people for Personal Gain.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain

I'm getting sorta tired of cockslapping you.*


There we have it. You don't care about truth, the subject at hand, or any outcome, you're simply here to maliciously libel others.

I'll just continue to show your admission of malice to people as you continue to harrass them now, thank you.

[Cain]

There we have it. You don't care about truth, the subject at hand, or any outcome, you're simply here to maliciously libel others.

I'll just continue to show your admission of malice to people as you continue to harrass them now, thank you.

You mean like calling them "unethical" without supporting argument? Or calling someone a "malicious troll" in light of, well, nothing?

Or continuing charges of ad hominem without even understanding the meaning of the term?

Or producing straw men while accusing others of straw men? You know, because I'm a communist.

Or avoiding the topic and focusing on the person? Yeah, I'm the one harrassing others by continually drawing attention to the argument rather than speaking about "self-loathing", nefarious "agendas", or the "need" to feel "sensitive" and "better than others".

:rolleyes:

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cain

I'm getting sorta tired of cockslapping you.*

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Bow wow woof woof.

You are much like Shanek. You require others to AGREE with you, not merely debate with you.

In that, you are obviously incapable of human discourse. You are a waste of time and a source of unnecessary entropy.

[Cain]

Bow wow woof woof.

You are much like Shanek. You require others to AGREE with you, not merely debate with you.

Ah, so now I'm like Shanek in that I require others to agree with me. Where do you read that? Can you cite any supporting text? Gosh, my last two or three posts to you have emphasized not agreement, but you supporting your disagreement, which you've repeatedly failed to do.

I will say this though, at least Shanek quotes text and then responds, keeping things on relatively on topic (at least when he's not calling someone a liar). You can't even do that. You're a gasbag.

[insert my above post here]

[jj]

Originally posted by Cain


I will say this though, at least Shanek quotes text and then responds, keeping things on relatively on topic (at least when he's not calling someone a liar). You can't even do that. You're a gasbag.



You're a malicious troll, who as admitted functioning as a rhetorical bully. Nothing you say or do has any meaning beyond your attempt to extend your range of extorted behaviors.

Shanek, just like you, routinely distorts and avoids questions that don't suit him, and then accuses others of being a "liar" or a "bigot" when they disagree with him.

You ignore germane responses, and then complain that you haven't been replied to, unless you LIKE the response. You're no different on a very fundamental level. You are incapable of discousre, you function only as a bully and aggressor, and you appear to have no function other that to poison the well.

[Cain]

Shanek, just like you, routinely distorts and avoids questions that don't suit him, and then accuses others of being a "liar" or a "bigot" when they disagree with him.

Gosh, that sounds much closer to your behavior.

You ignore germane responses, and then complain that you haven't been replied to, unless you LIKE the response.

Which germane responses have I ignored? I think I followed up on very nearly every single posted directed at me. Read through the thread for once. See for instance Skeptic's second reply to me. He ignores most of the issues raised, and then degenerates into attacking motives and nothing else. Troll wanted me to state an example of U.S. imperialism. I re-stated one previously mentioned, and he never followed up (for whatever reason). The list goes on.

Now, I've documented a few things you've utterly failed to respond to. Have you answered meaningfully (or at all)? Answer: no.

You're no different on a very fundamental level. You are incapable of discousre, you function only as a bully and aggressor, and you appear to have no function other that to poison the well.

You're the one who can only call me a troll, unethical and so on. You haven't even pretended to respond to the arguments at hand. Oh, but I'm such a "bully" for, um, insisting on sticking to the central facts.

I believe Freudians refer to your last few posts as cases of "projection".