I'm Debating With A Marxist

[dadmonson]

I posted about this in another forum but since I really want to debate this guy, I thought it more properly fit in this forum. I am debating with a Marxist, I'm new to objectivism, and I have much to learn about it but right now I just really want to call him on his bullshit. Please help me with this. The blue, is the marxist.

"Capitalism is the only economic system that completely outlaws the initiation of force."

Bullshit. Look at the turmoil in the world that is done by drove for capitalist domination: the Middle East, Afrika, and Latin America. Each one of these countries has millions of people who suffer force in the way of poverty, low wages, no health care, low living standards, and little ways of getting out of it because capitalism forces these people into the predicament that they are in.

"Socialism fails because of decision."

No. It fails because it was never implemented.

"Capitalism is the only system that protects indivdual and property rights"

The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property, and make money off of the millions of other people, controlling them socially, economically, and politically. Those few are the only people who have rights and make sure that they keep that privilege while everyone else suffers from poverty when they are the ones that make the money. Fuck that.

Edited November 21, 2007 by dadmonson

[Marty McFly]

ha ha I had a debate like that once! I got kicked off the forum because of it! lol! I have a feeling that there are people on payroll who go on the internet and brainwash everyone.

here is a topic I started a while ago. reading it reminds you of your rivals?

[airborne]

dadmonson - I meet people like that often, they completely outrage me. They can completely confuse you by coming up with obscure random examples and words but you know something in their reasoning just isn't right. It would probably be better to study more Objectivism and History before practicing arguing with stupid Marxists.

[dadmonson]

dadmonson - I meet people like that often, they completely outrage me. They can completely confuse you by coming up with obscure random examples and words but you know something in their reasoning just isn't right. It would probably be better to study more Objectivism and History before practicing arguing with stupid Marxists.

Marty McFly, you handled yourself very well I felt in that debate and yes it is indeed frustrating. It is like arguing with a kid with a mental disability.

Airborne, I don't want him to think that he has won though and start persuading others that Socialism is the superior system just because I(a very inexperienced defender of capitalism) stopped responding. I want to give the people in the forum atleast some food for thought before I bow out.

Edited November 22, 2007 by dadmonson

[intellectualammo]

"Socialism fails because of decision."

No. It fails because it was never implemented.

No, it fails, because it is immoral, it fails in theory, therefore in practice, especially when it is practiced fully.

The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property[...]

No, all human beings are born with certain individual rights ("inalienable rights"), that are to be protected, by banning the initation of force upon them by others.

Edited November 22, 2007 by intellectualammo

[fletch]

Bullshit. Look at the turmoil in the world that is done by drove for capitalist domination: the Middle East, Afrika, and Latin America. Each one of these countries has millions of people who suffer force in the way of poverty, low wages, no health care, low living standards, and little ways of getting out of it because capitalism forces these people into the predicament that they are in.

Capitalist domination in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America? Thats a new one. You may have him list these oppressive 'capitalist' states, if he can. The reason for the poverty in those areas is precisely the lack of freedom and the lack of capitalism. He is doing what any good marxist will do--blame capitalism for the failings of collectivism.

The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property, and make money off of the millions of other people, controlling them socially, economically, and politically. Those few are the only people who have rights and make sure that they keep that privilege while everyone else suffers from poverty when they are the ones that make the money. Fuck that.

What he is describing here is communism, or some other form of collectivism, not capitalism. He is describing the priviledged elite in a statist tyranny, and the power they exercise over the masses, not a free society. I am sure your marxist foe believes that he could make socialism work if only he were given the opportunity. intellectualammo is correct, socilaism fails because it is immoral. It does not become less so the more it becomes 'implemented.' It only becomes more evil.

[Mammon]

I'm Debating With A Marxist

I'm sorry, I misread this as "I'm taking a bath with alcohol and razor blades"

I was going to come warn you about that.

[Miles White]

The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property, and make money off of the millions of other people, controlling them socially, economically, and politically. Those few are the only people who have rights and make sure that they keep that privilege while everyone else suffers from poverty when they are the ones that make the money. Fuck that.

So poor people who live in a condominiums do not own beds to sleep on? or food to eat? or close to wear to work? those are all forms of private property as well. If one opposes private property then the man who wrote that needs to understand that in order for them to be consistent with their principal, they must abandon everything they own and go live life like an ascetic in the middle of a cave with mountain lions and then see how much more desirable or "revolutionary" their demented little excuse of a world they support.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Miles White

[Marty McFly]

Marty McFly, you handled yourself very well I felt in that debate and yes it is indeed frustrating. It is like arguing with a kid with a mental disability.

Airborne, I don't want him to think that he has won though and start persuading others that Socialism is the superior system just because I(a very inexperienced defender of capitalism) stopped responding. I want to give the people in the forum atleast some food for thought before I bow out.

thank you dadmonson, can you introduce me to this marxist? I would LOVE to argue with him! I would have kept my debate with those other idiots, but I was thrown out of the debate by the stupid moderators!

[Mammon]

Bullshit. Look at the turmoil in the world that is done by drove for capitalist domination: the Middle East, Afrika, and Latin America.

First off, I think he is suffering from a lack of being able to distinguish between business and capitalism. These two things are not the same thing. Business flourishs under capitalism, more so the socialism. But under forms of socialism, certain business might be granted monopolies because the government steps in and forces the competition out, usually with guns or by throwing everyone in the jail.

Capitalism represents freedom in that it is the freedom from the intiation of the use of the force. Force can only be used in self-defense and the government would a monopoly on self-defense that is not immediate. Meaning, if someone robs your house you don't go busting random peoples doors down and start stealing there stuff. We have the cops find and apprehend people, and the courts hear their story, decide their guilt or innocence and their punishment.

That being said, look at the words he uses "capitalist domination", domination of what exactly?

The Middle East has been ruled by religious collectivists for years, and now those same people and countries have socialist policies in place. They nationalized oil fields, that's a socialist move. Their governments force people to adhere to religious laws, instead of protecting people from the religious nuts. Then they sanction groups of people who initiate force against other people in other countries. They have problems, but those problems were self-imposed.Look at the wikipedia article on the subject. How many capitalist countries do you see? None. In fact, the countries listed as actively practicing socialism are incredible poor and filled with violence.

Latin America and Africa have been cesspools for Marxism the past century. Most of the revolutions to throw off the colonial rulers ended up taking a wrong turn at freedom and into the swamps of Marxism and endless fighting over who gets to decide who gets what. Look at Ethiopia, a country whos trademark is starving children. They had a period called the Red Terror where socialist militants killed thousands and starved millions. Which, if capitalist domination was causing this, then why didn't these outspoken socialists do anything about the starvation? Probably because becase they were too busy partying off the whiskey the U.N. gave them.

Each one of these countries has millions of people who suffer force in the way of poverty, low wages, no health care, low living standards, and little ways of getting out of it because capitalism forces these people into the predicament that they are in.

How does capitalism force these people into these predicaments? Mengistu didn't do anything about the starving people in his country. Either did any of the other socialist dictators in Africa. They still don't, they still kill their people, starve them to death, and steal their food when they finally get some. Meanwhile, look at United States, Japan and Hong Kong, a more capitalist countries, you don't see millions of people starving to death in these countries. Because, for the most part, people in these countries are free to live and act for themselves and free from the constant threat of force.

Here, are more fallacies is made by this guy.

Why are there wages so low? It could be a number of things. For starters, they may not be as productive as other workers. Or, they are but their wages are taken from them to pay for things like health care, temples, parties or guns. Or ever time they build a factory, open a store, or build a boat, it's destroyed in a war between the people trying to decide what to spend the money, generated by the things they are destroying, on. Another angle to look at this, is that what if the they don't need wages as high as ours? There cost of living might not be as high, so they need less money to get by.

Again, look at the more capitalist First World countries. There wages have been rising since they industrialized and freed themselves of the rule of coercive governments. This is a big death kneel in Marx's theories, he said wages will fall so "capitalists" can keep more for themselves and this is what would start a revolution against them. But, the direct opposite has happened. Wages have been on the rise, your money goes further and further. They only thing keeping wages down in the First World countries is inflation -- caused by the central banks of those countries, in act done by their governments. (In fact, Marx and other socialists preferred a central bank, controlled by the "people").

Health care is another issue. Your not entitled to health-care because doctors, nurses, the scientists and engineers behind the medical tools and the owners and operators of the hospitals are not your slaves. Capitalism says -- you pay them for their goods and services like they pay for yours. The reason the third world lacks so many hospitals is because of the reasons listed above. If there isn't adequate health-care in a giving area, it's the individuals responsibility (to themselves) to find it, and to acquire it. This could mean a number of things. These could mean that people can get together, pool thier money together and make a hospital. Under capitalism, they would be free to do so. They only thing that could stop them, granted they had their resources and could do the job right, is someone forcing them to stop. This could be done by private citizens or the government and the government is usually big enough to pull it off.

Capitalism would help these people get health-care because they would be free to get it for themselves. Simple as that.

Low living standards are caused, again, by the reasons listed above -- Either they choice to live in a state of low living standards or they are trying to improve their living standards and governments make that impossible for them or they are enslaving other people to provide that standard for them. Either way, again, look at the capitalist countries. They have a higher standard of living because people are free to produce goods and services and trade them, this improves the standard of living for everyone involved in the transaction.

The only reason people are in these situations is, quite simply because they haven't made a more capitalist culture.

[softwareNerd]

I posted about this in another forum but since I really want to debate this guy,...

I don't know your background, so... ...

The most important thing is to educate yourself, to understand why Capitalism is moral and why it is practical. Any Rand's anthology, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" is a good starting point, to get a summary of the pro-Capitalism case. Also, it's an important way to clarify for yourself what exactly Objectivism means by "Capitalism".

Second, if you are not familiar with economics, I'd suggest picking up a simple book. My recommendation would be Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson". It is available free online.

Third, you could get this $20 DVD of a 1984 debate on Capitalism vs. Socialism.

[Senator]

Basically the big mistake of the guy is confusing "ideal capitalism" with how some "so called" capitalists act out there.

To be a capitalist, or objectivist etc, does not (hopefully) imply to be a fanboy of every big company or act of big company out there.

If Blackwater kills 20 people for example, just because its a "private company" they aren't capitalists in my view. If a company damps 60 tonnes of heavy metals into the river (which it does not own) that's nothing more than an act of vandalism to all the people's bodies and properties it will pollute, that's not capitalism in my view, and so on. If a big land developer, send a couple of thugs and burned someone's house in order to buy it, that's not capitalism in my view, even if it is done by "a big land developer".

It's one thing to be a capitalist.

Another thing to be a fanboy.

Usually then, most people talking about the evil acts of capitalism will attribute acts to it, that were never "capitalistic" in the first place.

[Matus1976]

I posted about this in another forum but since I really want to debate this guy, I thought it more properly fit in this forum. I am debating with a Marxist, I'm new to objectivism, and I have much to learn about it but right now I just really want to call him on his bullshit. Please help me with this. The blue, is the marxist.

You might find some value in my "Four Freedoms" essay.

Four Freedoms

[UptonStellington]

The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property, and make money off of the millions of other people, controlling them socially, economically, and politically. Those few are the only people who have rights and make sure that they keep that privilege while everyone else suffers from poverty when they are the ones that make the money. Fuck that.

This might have been mentioned, although I did not see it, but in addition to all of the other comments, I think one of the fundamental things that needs to be addressed with a person such as this is the question of, "What ARE rights?" In all my years of school, the phrase, "individual rights" has been constantly tossed at us, but I had to take an AP Government class in high school to even be involved in a discussion of WHAT rights are, and WHERE they come from -- and even then, I found the explanation more than lacking. I got some vague explanation of social contract theory that really didn't seem to fit with all of the assertions people make about the importance/universality of individual rights.

You should definitely address the fact that this person seems to have confused something like a "Capitalism in name only" system with the failings of collectivism, since that is what got people in such countries to this point. But also, when he throws around assertions about rights, that's a good place to stop and say you'd like some clarification as to what rights really are and where they come from.

What he really has done is used a corrupted definition of "right." His assertion makes clear that he thinks a right is a guarantee to a material reward. Talk to him about this -- is this the case? If it is, in his view (as I'm sure it is), how does it work practically? If a right to free speech means that the owner of a lecture hall HAS to rent it out to you, what does that do to HIS rights?

How can rights be instituted in a society without impeding upon the rights of other people? -- If you can corner him into that question, you will come to the conclusion that the only way this can be done is not by making rights a guarantee to material rewards or commodities, but by making them guarantees to freedom of action, without the use of FORCE to deter you.

[charles fisher]

I posted about this in another forum but since I really want to debate this guy, I thought it more properly fit in this forum. I am debating with a Marxist, I'm new to objectivism, and I have much to learn about it but right now I just really want to call him on his bullshit. Please help me with this. The blue, is the marxist.

"Capitalism is the only economic system that completely outlaws the initiation of force."

Bullshit. Look at the turmoil in the world that is done by drove for capitalist domination: the Middle East, Afrika, and Latin America. Each one of these countries has millions of people who suffer force in the way of poverty, low wages, no health care, low living standards, and little ways of getting out of it because capitalism forces these people into the predicament that they are in.

"Socialism fails because of decision."

No. It fails because it was never implemented.

"Capitalism is the only system that protects indivdual and property rights"

The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property, and make money off of the millions of other people, controlling them socially, economically, and politically. Those few are the only people who have rights and make sure that they keep that privilege while everyone else suffers from poverty when they are the ones that make the money. Fuck that.

Well, this is basic stuff. I would suggest that you read all of Ayn Rand's works before engaging in a "debate" with an idiot like this. Be advised, you cannot "win" an argument with someone whose mind is made up. His statement that capitalism outlaws the use of force is false, so is yours. Capitalism is a system of economics, not government. A rational government based upon objectivist principles does not allow the use of force by its individual citizens to solve disputes, but gives that power to a duly elected government. The countries he mentions are brutal dictatorships; they bear no resemblance to free societies in which men may work for their own interest. If he thinks otherwise, let him move to Cuba and see how he makes out.

Again, you are both technically wrong about socialism. It does not work because of decision or implementation; it does not work because it is fundamentally anti man and cannot possibly succeed if there is one man left who wishes to work for his own benefit rather than that of others. Socialism has failed every time it was implemented, with that implementation always at gunpoint. No rational man would willingly enter into a system of government which draws a blank check against all that he will ever produce.

His most idiotic statement is this: The only people who have individual rights are the few people who own private property, and make money off of the millions of other people, controlling them socially, economically, and politically. Those few are the only people who have rights and make sure that they keep that privilege while everyone else suffers from poverty when they are the ones that make the money.

All men have individual rights, only other men can try to take them away. Those who produce and succeed in his little world are to be condemned and punished, while those who did nothing walk away with the results of other men's labor. Private property is the result of work, nothing else. Those who cannot or will not work will own nothing and have nobody to blame other than themselves. This goes back to the "backs of the poor" argument which claims that successful people made their money by stealing it from those who have nothing to steal. No moocher ever built a skyscaper or hired another man. Vile, envious rats like this are to be dismissed. Let them do what they will, which is nothing of value.