DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
True Left
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Questions & Debates
*****************************************************
#Post#: 30816--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 19, 2025, 1:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"capitalist behavior."[/quote]
Capitalist behaviour is acccumulation of capital. Dispersal of
capital is anti-capitalist behaviour.[/quote]
[quote]Capitalism is an economic system in which private
individuals or businesses own capital goods. At the same time,
business owners employ workers who receive only wages; labor
doesn't own the means of production but instead uses them on
behalf of the owners of capital.
The production of goods and services under capitalism is based
on supply and demand in the general market, also known as the
market economy. This is in contrast to a planned economy or a
command economy, in which prices are set through central
planning.[1]
......
Capitalism is often thought of as an economic system in which
private actors own and control property in accord with their
interests, and demand and supply freely set prices in markets in
a way that can serve the best interests of society. [2][/quote]
Source :
1. Liberto, D. (2025). What Is Capitalism? History, Pros & Cons,
vs. Socialism. Investopedia.
HTML https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalism.asp#:~:text=Capitalism%20is%20an%20economic%20system%20in%20which%20private%20individuals%20or,of%20the%20owners%20of%20capital.
2. What Is Capitalism? (2018, May 10). IMF.
HTML https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/Series/Back-to-Basics/Capitalism
‌The circulation of money to purchase expensive
products—while such purchases may encourage people to expand
businesses and increase capital—will not bring an end to
capitalist practices. Expensive products can only be accessed by
those who are able to generate large amounts of money, and they
can obtain this only if they own a successful business or
middle-class occupation. And to succeed, they must continuously
maintain and preserve their existing capital and resources, and
also winning consumers's agreement to buy their products.
[quote][quote]"If a “voluntary agreement” means that Class A is
justified in extracting surplus value from production—despite
having no rightful claim to it"[/quote]
The rightful claim derives from the voluntary agreement.[/quote]
Capitalists also say the same thing and justify it, but as a
socialist I certainly reject it. Because voluntary agreement
does not actually produce safety, but instead results in the
exploitation of labor and overproduction that destroys nature.
The solution lies in an agreement that is guided by those who
truly understand society.
[quote][quote]"such a “voluntary agreement” amounts to ignoring
the deceitful nature of A’s claims over profit
distribution"[/quote]
Where is the deceit?
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30733/#msg30733
[quote]A: "So should we just split the profit or loss from sales
in half every month?"
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed salary instead, and the net profit or loss can be all
yours?"
A: "OK."[/quote][/quote]
A justifies B’s proposal without resistance, even though A
understands that the workload assigned to him is one he can
easily manage, just as B also receives work that matches his
abilities—though B’s workload is lighter than A’s. A should have
rejected B’s proposal and pointed out that A ought not to
receive a wage much higher than B’s, since the profit and loss
of a sale is not truly a difficult burden for A, just as routine
daily labor is not a difficult burden for B. But instead, A
simply agrees to B’s proposal, which grants A surplus value from
his work in greater proportion, and A remains silent about it.
Thus, the agreement scenario you propose becomes an agreement
that ultimately results in the hijacking of profit.
[quote][quote]"Creating uncertainty in economic transactions
under the pretext of justifying voluntary exchange is not a
planned activity, but rather one that is spontaneous and
entirely unplanned."[/quote]
You are changing the subject.[/quote]
I am still speaking about one single topic, namely the topic of
discussing the true meaning of socialism.
[quote][quote]"I make Class A feel guilty and portray them as
the perpetrators of physical and psychological violence"[/quote]
Just because you consider them to be preservers of "social
disparity" (a.k.a. inequality). Which implies you consider
"social disparity" (a.k.a. inequality) to be bad. Which makes
you an egalitarian.[/quote]
I make the middle class and the upper class guilty and strip
them of their social and economic mobility. And they are easily
directed to follow the goals of the state and the party to build
a socialist life. And I honor the working-class groups who have
become aware of the evils of capitalist life. Thus, I do not
place the middle and upper classes in the same position—I make
them appear guilty and inferior.
[quote][quote]"Not everything is good and right simply because
it is done voluntarily."[/quote]
But initiating violence in response to non-violent bad and wrong
things is unacceptable.[/quote]
You consider the act of accumulating capital and engaging in
voluntary transactions—which inevitably create competitive and
aggressive life conditions—as not being forms of violence. Yet I
have already shown the fatal consequences of allowing such
activities to take place. Therefore, to regard voluntary
transactions and the voluntary accumulation of capital by
individuals as harmless is in fact a perspective that leads to
social capitalism, and such a condition will inevitably produce
physical, psychological, and systemic violence. I think you have
not understood socialism correctly. You even consider voluntary
transactions based on the law of the market as something that
does not produce violence. Yet in fact, Hitler himself despised
such market-based activities.
[quote][quote]"Racist behavior carried out between both parties
voluntarily is still wrong."[/quote]
If group P unanimously asks group Q to treat P as the outgroup
and Q as the ingroup, and group Q unanimously agrees, I would
not initiate violence against either group. I would only
prohibit both groups from reproducing.[/quote]
Do the same with some individuals from groups B and A who agree
to a contract to implement voluntary transactions of a
competitive–capitalistic nature. People with a capitalistic and
competitive mentality will be targeted to be prohibited from
reproducing.
[quote][quote]"Harming one another voluntarily between both
parties is still wrong."[/quote]
You will have to explain this one.[/quote]
If groups voluntarily choose to live competitively and
capitalistically within the system of the market mechanism, they
create the illusion that such a life is non-violent. Yet in
reality, through reason and concrete evidence, that very life
produces physical, psychological, and systemic violence
[quote][quote]"A state or community policy that allows
transactions between parties to occur voluntarily is, in
essence, a policy of economic and entrepreneurial freedom. And
that, too, is a policy—especially when such a state, through
this policy, obstructs planned, integrated, and socialist forms
of economic activity."[/quote]
Allowing something is not a policy. Requiring or prohibiting
something is a policy. Policy is by definition something that is
policed (note the shared etymological root). Nothing that is
allowed is policed. Only things that are either required or
prohibited are policed.[/quote]
Allowing activities based on competition and the law of the
market mechanism to the point of obstructing and defeating those
who seek to live decently through planned and coordinated
economic and social activity is, indirectly, an act that
embodies prohibition and neglect of the very importance of
socialist life. Activities based on the law of the market
mechanism and voluntary transactions tend to operate in a way
that prohibits activities rooted in planning and coordinated
exchange
[quote][quote]"It is you who are democratic, because you have
justified allowing the mass of consumers to voluntarily choose
among the products offered by producers."[/quote]
Democratic consumerism would be if everyone must use the product
that the majority prefers. That is not what I advocate.[/quote]
If you do not advocate for the use of products based on the
choice of the majority, then you should reject voluntary
transactions. For activities based on voluntary transactions and
the law of the market tend to produce products deemed legitimate
for consumption by the preferences of the majority.
[quote]"Consent to have one’s labor exploited voluntarily, and
to have money distributed unfairly despite the actual conditions
and capabilities, is consent to normalize the physical and
psychological violence inherent in economic transactions
governed by the laws of the market mechanism."
[quote]A: "So should we just split the profit or loss from sales
in half every month?"
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed salary instead, and the net profit or loss can be all
yours?"
A: "OK."[/quote][/quote]
‘A’ justifies the practice of selling based on profit and loss
under the law of the market, a practice that drives capitalist
and competitive dynamics. Yet capitalist and competitive
practices, throughout history, have resulted in the exploitation
of workers and the collapse of empathy and trust in social
interactions between individuals and groups. Party ‘A’ thereby
legitimizes practices with great potential to generate
violence—physical, psychological, and systemic.
‘B,’ by simply endorsing A’s proposal, also legitimizes an
agreement to engage in practices that carry the same potential
for these various forms of violence.”
[quote][quote]"Conversation number 2 shows that A accepted B’s
proposal, which justified A receiving extra value from the
production output. A is not honest"[/quote]
How can A be dishonest for accepting a proposal that B
proposed?[/quote]
A does not reveal the harsh reality of the transactional
agreement with B that has been discussed. Therefore, A must
submit to the state and the party, and attend public lectures on
Das Kapital and the Socialist Economic System, so that A does
not continue to forge harmful agreements that generate recurring
forms of violence
[quote][quote]"Conversation number 3 shows that A perpetuates
social conditions that generate social disparity"[/quote]
The restaurant voluntarily serves A in exchange for payment. And
again you admit that you are an egalitarian.[/quote]
Voluntary services that give rise to social disparity and
environmental gentrification cannot be accepted if we want
society to experience ease and accessibility in solving the
problems of life. I am not egalitarian; I punish the bourgeois
class and the middle class as inferior.
[quote]"Feces are not a usable product"
[quote]videos of your faeces[/quote]
are a usable product because the buyer can watch the videos just
like the buyer can watch videos of any other content.[/quote]
Again, I will explain about ‘faeces’ :
Feces are not a usable product and cannot be used as an example
of a transaction involving a usable product that we are
discussing, whether the feces are presented as visual content,
audio, deliberate verbal communication, or even demonstrated as
tangible material evidence.
#Post#: 30820--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 19, 2025, 9:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"The circulation of money to purchase expensive products—while
such purchases may encourage people to expand businesses and
increase capital—will not bring an end to capitalist practices."
They are not increasing capital! Every circulation involves
sales tax as I already mentioned! That means the more
circulation occurs, the more money the state gets.
"The solution lies in an agreement that is guided by those who
truly understand society."
I disagree that you understand society. Therefore there is no
agreement possible if you claim to understand society.
"A should have rejected B’s proposal and pointed out that A
ought not to receive a wage much higher than B’s"
So you are saying A should take all the risk but only get half
the reward, while B can take no risk and also get half the
reward?
"But instead, A simply agrees to B’s proposal, which grants A
surplus value from his work in greater proportion, and A remains
silent about it."
This is not deceit.
"You even consider voluntary transactions based on the law of
the market as something that does not produce violence"
Violence involves lack of consent. If something is voluntary,
there is no lack of consent, and therefore no violence.
"People with a capitalistic and competitive mentality will be
targeted to be prohibited from reproducing."
But they should be allowed to go to whichever restaurant they
want to go to. Which you oppose. Which makes you the initiator
of violence.
"If groups voluntarily choose to live competitively and
capitalistically within the system of the market mechanism, they
create the illusion that such a life is non-violent."
It is not an illusion. If it is voluntary, it is non-violent.
"Yet in reality, through reason and concrete evidence, that very
life produces physical, psychological, and systemic violence"
You are just using the term "violence" to refer to whatever you
dislike.
"Allowing activities based on competition and the law of the
market mechanism to the point of obstructing and defeating those
who seek to live decently through planned and coordinated
economic and social activity is, indirectly, an act that
embodies prohibition and neglect of the very importance of
socialist life."
You are saying that nothing you dislike should be allowed.
"If you do not advocate for the use of products based on the
choice of the majority, then you should reject voluntary
transactions. For activities based on voluntary transactions and
the law of the market tend to produce products deemed legitimate
for consumption by the preferences of the majority."
You are illiterate.
HTML https://cdn.osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/desktop-operating-system-market-share.jpg
Windows is the majority product. This does not mean Windows is
compulsory.
"‘A’ justifies the practice of selling based on profit and loss
under the law of the market, a practice that drives capitalist
and competitive dynamics. Yet capitalist and competitive
practices, throughout history, have resulted in the exploitation
of workers and the collapse of empathy and trust in social
interactions between individuals and groups. Party ‘A’ thereby
legitimizes practices with great potential to generate
violence—physical, psychological, and systemic.
‘B,’ by simply endorsing A’s proposal, also legitimizes an
agreement to engage in practices that carry the same potential
for these various forms of violence.”"
By your logic, breathing should not be allowed either, since
everyone in history who initiated violence had to breathe first.
"A does not reveal the harsh reality of the transactional
agreement with B that has been discussed."
It is B's proposal, you moron.
"Therefore, A must submit to the state and the party, and attend
public lectures on Das Kapital and the Socialist Economic
System, so that A does not continue to forge harmful agreements
that generate recurring forms of violence"
You are initiating violence already.
"Voluntary services that give rise to social disparity and
environmental gentrification cannot be accepted"
You are an egalitarian.
"Feces are not a usable product"
You are illiterate. The video is the product. Any video that
plays is usable. The subject of the video does not affect
whether or not the video plays.
#Post#: 30833--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 23, 2025, 5:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"The circulation of money to purchase expensive
products—while such purchases may encourage people to expand
businesses and increase capital—will not bring an end to
capitalist practices."[/quote]
They are not increasing capital! Every circulation involves
sales tax as I already mentioned! That means the more
circulation occurs, the more money the state gets.[/quote]
“If their acts of consumption allow the owners of capital and
high-value products to continue their economic activity, then
they must be disciplined. They are the ones who perpetuate
capitalist practices, making them repeat again and again.”
[quote][quote]"The solution lies in an agreement that is guided
by those who truly understand society."[/quote]
I disagree that you understand society. Therefore there is no
agreement possible if you claim to understand society.[/quote]
You have not yet understood socialism, and therefore you have
not yet understood society.
[quote][quote]"A should have rejected B’s proposal and pointed
out that A ought not to receive a wage much higher than
B’s"[/quote]
So you are saying A should take all the risk but only get half
the reward, while B can take no risk and also get half the
reward?[/quote]
A and B have workloads that match their abilities; therefore, A
does not deserve to feel entitled to receive higher wages than
B.
[quote][quote]"But instead, A simply agrees to B’s proposal,
which grants A surplus value from his work in greater
proportion, and A remains silent about it."[/quote]
This is not deceit.[/quote]
If you read Das Kapital as Hitler once did, you would consider
A’s attitude of accepting B’s proposal in the dialogue script
you created as a form of deception. What I dislike is the
exploitation of labor, the deceitful accumulation of capital,
and the economic competition that causes life’s uncertainty and
poverty. The things I dislike are truly destructive and painful
[quote][quote]"You even consider voluntary transactions based on
the law of the market as something that does not produce
violence"[/quote]
Violence involves lack of consent. If something is voluntary,
there is no lack of consent, and therefore no violence.
......
[quote]"If groups voluntarily choose to live competitively and
capitalistically within the system of the market mechanism, they
create the illusion that such a life is non-violent."[/quote]
It is not an illusion. If it is voluntary, it is
non-violent.[/quote]
The voluntary attitude of practicing economic competition and
social aggressiveness means making it seem as if the violence
inherent in capitalist life does not exist, when in fact such
violence already exists and is happening. Therefore, such
voluntary behavior remains wrong. It is the same as when certain
parties voluntarily allow the practice of social discrimination.
[quote][quote]"People with a capitalistic and competitive
mentality will be targeted to be prohibited from
reproducing."[/quote]
But they should be allowed to go to whichever restaurant they
want to go to. Which you oppose. Which makes you the initiator
of violence.[/quote]
If their acts of consumption allow the owners of capital and
high-value products to continue their economic activity, then
they must be disciplined. They are the ones who perpetuate
capitalist practices, making them repeat again and again.
[quote][quote]"Yet in reality, through reason and concrete
evidence, that very life produces physical, psychological, and
systemic violence"[/quote]
You are just using the term "violence" to refer to whatever you
dislike.
......
[quote]"Allowing activities based on competition and the law of
the market mechanism to the point of obstructing and defeating
those who seek to live decently through planned and coordinated
economic and social activity is, indirectly, an act that
embodies prohibition and neglect of the very importance of
socialist life."[/quote]
You are saying that nothing you dislike should be
allowed.[/quote]
What I dislike is the exploitation of labor, the deceitful
accumulation of capital, and the economic competition that
causes life’s uncertainty and poverty. The things I dislike are
truly destructive and painful.
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/c885836544f019178ff2a6ac35d3259b/9b1c1b937f253084-d0/s1280x1920/3292f506bbf9d1616b517dc54e979215122f5cf2.jpg
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/39e0149f3219886601fc8018a3475bb8/9b1c1b937f253084-c9/s1280x1920/1f6b1ade400b5e86df0c7d61290c9c727fcd9b11.jpg
[quote][quote]"If you do not advocate for the use of products
based on the choice of the majority, then you should reject
voluntary transactions. For activities based on voluntary
transactions and the law of the market tend to produce products
deemed legitimate for consumption by the preferences of the
majority."[/quote]
You are illiterate.
HTML https://cdn.osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/desktop-operating-system-market-share.jpg
Windows is the majority product. This does not mean Windows is
compulsory.[/quote]
If you do not require that products chosen by the majority of
consumers continue to be purchased, yet you still feel no
problem and allow transactions between producers and consumers
to occur voluntarily according to market mechanism laws, then I
do not trust you.
[quote][quote]"‘A’ justifies the practice of selling based on
profit and loss under the law of the market, a practice that
drives capitalist and competitive dynamics. Yet capitalist and
competitive practices, throughout history, have resulted in the
exploitation of workers and the collapse of empathy and trust in
social interactions between individuals and groups. Party ‘A’
thereby legitimizes practices with great potential to generate
violence—physical, psychological, and systemic.
‘B,’ by simply endorsing A’s proposal, also legitimizes an
agreement to engage in practices that carry the same potential
for these various forms of violence.”"[/quote]
By your logic, breathing should not be allowed either, since
everyone in history who initiated violence had to breathe
first.[/quote]
Breathing does not produce violence; this basic human activity
cannot be equated or compared to voluntary transactions between
producers and consumers
[quote][quote]"A does not reveal the harsh reality of the
transactional agreement with B that has been discussed."[/quote]
It is B's proposal, you moron.[/quote]
Proposal B legitimizes A’s deceit in dividing labor value and
wages; therefore, Proposal B is undeserving of acceptance or
approval. Das Kapital has already exposed the flawed labor
scenarios inherent in the arrangement you described.
[quote][quote]"Therefore, A must submit to the state and the
party, and attend public lectures on Das Kapital and the
Socialist Economic System, so that A does not continue to forge
harmful agreements that generate recurring forms of
violence"[/quote]
You are initiating violence already.[/quote]
Capitalists would say the same, but I do not take their opinions
seriously. Indeed, they are deserving of retaliatory action
[quote][quote]"Voluntary services that give rise to social
disparity and environmental gentrification cannot be
accepted"[/quote]
You are an egalitarian.[/quote]
I have weakened the capital power of the middle and upper
classes, making them feel increasingly inferior each day, and
forcing them to acknowledge that they have exploited the working
class and the semi-proletariat. I am a steadfast
anti-egalitarian.
[quote][quote]"Feces are not a usable product"[/quote]
You are illiterate. The video is the product. Any video that
plays is usable. The subject of the video does not affect
whether or not the video plays.[/quote]
Feces are not a usable product and cannot be used as an example
of a transaction involving a usable product that we are
discussing, whether the feces are presented as visual content,
audio, deliberate verbal communication, or even demonstrated as
tangible material evidence.
#Post#: 30835--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 23, 2025, 8:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"“If their acts of consumption allow the owners of capital and
high-value products to continue their economic activity, then
they must be disciplined. They are the ones who perpetuate
capitalist practices, making them repeat again and again.”"
[quote]Every circulation involves sales tax[/quote]
"You have not yet understood socialism, and therefore you have
not yet understood society."
Now you are admitting you are a progressive.
"A and B have workloads that match their abilities; therefore, A
does not deserve to feel entitled to receive higher wages than
B."
[quote]So you are saying A should take all the risk but only get
half the reward, while B can take no risk and also get half the
reward[/quote]
If A and B go to a casino together with $10 each, and A bets $10
on dice while B bets nothing, and then A wins and gets another
$10 in winnings, does A have an obligation to give B $5 so that
they end up with $15 each?
"What I dislike is the exploitation of labor, the deceitful
accumulation of capital, and the economic competition that
causes life’s uncertainty and poverty. The things I dislike are
truly destructive and painful"
You can dislike whatever you want to dislike. But the moment you
initiate violence against something merely because you dislike
it, you deserve retaliatory violence.
"The voluntary attitude of practicing economic competition and
social aggressiveness means making it seem as if the violence
inherent in capitalist life does not exist, when in fact such
violence already exists and is happening."
You are saying that non-violence is violence.
"It is the same as when certain parties voluntarily allow the
practice of social discrimination."
We encourage social discrimination, you moron:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-anti-relativism/
If you oppose all forms of social discrimination, you are in
effect saying all people should be treated equally, which is
another admission that you are an egalitarian.
"I do not trust you."
Good. Leave.
"Breathing does not produce violence"
Neither do voluntary transactions (by definition).
"Proposal B legitimizes A’s deceit in dividing labor value and
wages; therefore, Proposal B is undeserving of acceptance or
approval."
That it is B's proposal already proves absence of deceit by A.
Deceit by A would imply A supplied false information, But since
all the information was supplied by B, it is impossible for A to
have supplied any false information.
"Feces are not a usable product and cannot be used as an example
of a transaction involving a usable product that we are
discussing, whether the feces are presented as visual content,
audio, deliberate verbal communication, or even demonstrated as
tangible material evidence."
It is because the video is usable that you are able to watch it
and find out what it is about. So by admitting that you know
what the video is about, you have already conceded that the
video is usable (otherwise how do you know what it is about?).
#Post#: 30840--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 24, 2025, 11:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]"“If their acts of consumption allow the owners of
capital and high-value products to continue their economic
activity, then they must be disciplined. They are the ones who
perpetuate capitalist practices, making them repeat again and
again.”"
[quote]Every circulation involves sales tax[/quote][/quote]
People can still accumulate capital and wealth even under the
obligation of taxation within an environment governed by
competition and the law of the market, for indeed they are
permitted to do so. Therefore, capitalist practices cannot be
dismantled merely by enforcing taxation policies. They must also
be accompanied by measures that prohibit individuals from
managing capital and private wealth. All money in existence must
be recognized only as a loan from the State and the Party.
[quote][quote]"You have not yet understood socialism, and
therefore you have not yet understood society."[/quote]
Now you are admitting you are a progressive.[/quote]
I am not progressive. I stand firmly against the practices of
capitalism and competition between individuals or groups, for
such practices inevitably give rise to so-called
"progressivism." Competition leads individuals to glorify
strength and self-development rather than self-awareness and
empathy toward the original condition of humanity.
[quote][quote]"A and B have workloads that match their
abilities; therefore, A does not deserve to feel entitled to
receive higher wages than B."[/quote]
[quote]So you are saying A should take all the risk but only get
half the reward, while B can take no risk and also get half the
reward[/quote]
If A and B go to a casino together with $10 each, and A bets $10
on dice while B bets nothing, and then A wins and gets another
$10 in winnings, does A have an obligation to give B $5 so that
they end up with $15 each?[/quote]
A and B both bear work-related risks that are equally aligned
with the abilities they have mastered. Therefore, you cannot
claim that A bears risks while B does not. If the scenario is
that A and B go to a gambling place and A wins while B does not,
then from the socialist standpoint, A recognizes that the
gambling house is exploitation and a source of income
uncertainty, and A would put an end to the gambling itself while
helping B who has failed in the game. You keep asking the same
question, one that has already been answered repeatedly — a
clever debate strategy....
[quote][quote]"What I dislike is the exploitation of labor, the
deceitful accumulation of capital, and the economic competition
that causes life’s uncertainty and poverty. The things I dislike
are truly destructive and painful"[/quote]
You can dislike whatever you want to dislike. But the moment you
initiate violence against something merely because you dislike
it, you deserve retaliatory violence.[/quote]
I do not accept the condition in which workers are exploited by
the owners of capital merely to fulfill the demands of
productivity in the face of market uncertainty. Such a condition
can only be ended by establishing a life based on a planned
economy, guided by those who truly understand humanity and
empathy. My opposition is not born of blind hatred, but of
reasoned rejection of exploitation
[quote][quote]"The voluntary attitude of practicing economic
competition and social aggressiveness means making it seem as if
the violence inherent in capitalist life does not exist, when in
fact such violence already exists and is happening."[/quote]
You are saying that non-violence is violence.[/quote]
Voluntary transactions between parties create uncertainty in the
circulation of money, where only those who dominate the market
gain access to it. Meanwhile, those who fail to secure consumer
approval for their labor are left without money and condemned to
poverty—even though their work is not entirely worthless and
remains consumable, and not all of them are immoral or corrupt.
This is the reality produced by an economy built upon voluntary
exchange and the law of the market mechanism. Therefore,
planning and leadership are the true solutions, and you can no
longer claim that voluntary action is inherently ‘non-violent.’
[quote][quote]"It is the same as when certain parties
voluntarily allow the practice of social
discrimination."[/quote]
We encourage social discrimination, you moron:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/true-left-breakthrough-anti-relativism/
If you oppose all forms of social discrimination, you are in
effect saying all people should be treated equally, which is
another admission that you are an egalitarian.[/quote]
Social discrimination, in my view, means practicing racism,
worsening the lives of the proletariat by impoverishing them
within a competitive environment, and allowing landlords to
arbitrarily evict people from their land even though they are
innocent. Even when such people had signed a so-called voluntary
agreement with the landlord, the content of that agreement
actually legitimized arbitrary eviction—something the landlord
themselves may not even fully realize. Therefore, I still
maintain a discriminative stance, particularly against the
middle class, the bourgeois class, and the landlord class.
(Which mostly "whites" and Jews on the Western World)
[quote][quote]"Breathing does not produce violence"[/quote]
Neither do voluntary transactions (by definition).[/quote]
Then why does voluntary exchange in the Western world produce
capitalism and social violence, which also spread across the
globe through practices of mercantilism, colonialism, and
neo-colonialism? Why has economic activity based on voluntary
transactions caused poverty and social violence in any country
that implements such economic policies in the public sphere?
[quote][quote]"Proposal B legitimizes A’s deceit in dividing
labor value and wages; therefore, Proposal B is undeserving of
acceptance or approval."[/quote]
That it is B's proposal already proves absence of deceit by A.
Deceit by A would imply A supplied false information, But since
all the information was supplied by B, it is impossible for A to
have supplied any false information.[/quote]
B might also be unaware that the proposed work contract between
B and A will lead to labor exploitation in the future. A
voluntary work contract, where one agrees to work under the
pressures of competition and market laws, will inevitably result
in labor exploitation under the guise of “productive efficiency”
and “capital savings.”
[quote][quote]"Feces are not a usable product and cannot be used
as an example of a transaction involving a usable product that
we are discussing, whether the feces are presented as visual
content, audio, deliberate verbal communication, or even
demonstrated as tangible material evidence."[/quote]
It is because the video is usable that you are able to watch it
and find out what it is about. So by admitting that you know
what the video is about, you have already conceded that the
video is usable (otherwise how do you know what it is
about?).[/quote]
Feces will never be something that can be consumed or traded,
even if presented as a video or a proposal… You are using
examples that are unfit for production and consumption. Yet, we
are discussing issues related to proper methods of production
and consumption
#Post#: 30842--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: August 25, 2025, 5:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"People can still accumulate capital and wealth even under the
obligation of taxation within an environment governed by
competition and the law of the market, for indeed they are
permitted to do so. Therefore, capitalist practices cannot be
dismantled merely by enforcing taxation policies."
Trivially untrue:
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/limitarianism-the-case-against-extreme-wealth-ingrid-robeyns-extract
[quote]If taxation were our only tool for achieving a limitarian
society, the tax rate would need to be set at 100% for wealth
and income beyond a certain point[/quote]
That you could not figure this out yourself just by doing a few
calculations in your head proves you know nothing about the
subject.
"you cannot claim that A bears risks while B does not."
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30733/#msg30733
[quote]B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I
receive a fixed salary instead, and the net profit or loss can
be all yours?"
A: "OK.[/quote]
"If the scenario is that A and B go to a gambling place and A
wins while B does not, then from the socialist standpoint, A
recognizes that the gambling house is exploitation and a source
of income uncertainty, and A would put an end to the gambling
itself while helping B who has failed in the game."
You are illiterate. B did not lose a bet. B did not bet at all:
[quote]If A and B go to a casino together with $10 each, and A
bets $10 on dice while B bets nothing, and then A wins and gets
another $10 in winnings, does A have an obligation to give B $5
so that they end up with $15 each?[/quote]
Also, what exploitation? Everyone who gambles chose to do so
themselves!
"I do not accept the condition in which workers are exploited"
Oh, of course, "exploitation" is just another word you use to
describe anything you personally dislike, similar to your use of
"violence", "deceit", etc..
"you can no longer claim that voluntary action is inherently
‘non-violent.’"
It is true by definition, you moron.
"Even when such people had signed a so-called voluntary
agreement with the landlord, the content of that agreement
actually legitimized arbitrary eviction"
They could have chosen to not sign. In particular, they could
have negotiated to remove the eviction clause as a precondition
for signing, if that was what they were worried about.
"Then why does voluntary exchange in the Western world produce
capitalism"
Why did voluntary exchange in all non-Western civilizations
never produce capitalism? The real problem is Western
civilization, not voluntary exchange (which has been going on
since prehistory).
"B might also be unaware that the proposed work contract between
B and A will lead to labor exploitation in the future."
It is not exploitation since it is B's proposal.
"Feces"
[quote]It is because the video is usable that you are able to
watch it and find out what it is about. So by admitting that you
know what the video is about, you have already conceded that the
video is usable (otherwise how do you know what it is
about?).[/quote]
#Post#: 30864--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: August 31, 2025, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"People can still accumulate capital and wealth
even under the obligation of taxation within an environment
governed by competition and the law of the market, for indeed
they are permitted to do so. Therefore, capitalist practices
cannot be dismantled merely by enforcing taxation
policies."[/quote]
Trivially untrue:
HTML https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/limitarianism-the-case-against-extreme-wealth-ingrid-robeyns-extract
[quote]If taxation were our only tool for achieving a limitarian
society, the tax rate would need to be set at 100% for wealth
and income beyond a certain point[/quote]
That you could not figure this out yourself just by doing a few
calculations in your head proves you know nothing about the
subject.[/quote]
Capitalist practices will continue to exist even if tax policies
reach one hundred percent. This is because an economy based on
voluntary transactions inevitably drives individuals to seek the
greatest possible capital in order to maintain business assets
and ensure survival amidst the uncertainty of the market.
[quote][quote]"you cannot claim that A bears risks while B does
not."[/quote]
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30733/#msg30733
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed salary instead, and the net profit or loss can be all
yours?"
A: "OK.[/quote]
To accept a labor agreement within the framework of market
uncertainty is to accept the inevitability of exploitation.
Under capitalism, the so-called ‘voluntary’ contract masks
coercion: workers, pressed by the need to survive, are forced to
submit to conditions dictated by those who own capital. In the
pursuit of so-called ‘efficiency,’ human beings are reduced to
mere instruments, their bodies exhausted, their minds shattered,
and their dignity stripped away.
This is not the promise of freedom but the guarantee of systemic
violence—violence that is physical, as labor is consumed;
psychological, as insecurity corrodes the spirit; and social, as
solidarity is broken by competition. Therefore, the scenario you
describe cannot be justified as neutral or harmless; it is a
perpetuation of the very cycle of exploitation and suffering
that Das Kapital already unveiled with ruthless clarity
[quote][quote]If A and B go to a casino together with $10 each,
and A bets $10 on dice while B bets nothing, and then A wins and
gets another $10 in winnings, does A have an obligation to give
B $5 so that they end up with $15 each?[/quote]
Also, what exploitation? Everyone who gambles chose to do so
themselves![/quote]
A engages in gambling and obtains winnings, while B is uncertain
of receiving any. Therefore, so that B may still have financial
security, A, as a fellow citizen, must help B by giving a
portion of the money gained.
[quote][quote]"I do not accept the condition in which workers
are exploited"[/quote]
Oh, of course, "exploitation" is just another word you use to
describe anything you personally dislike, similar to your use of
"violence", "deceit", etc..[/quote]
Exploitation of labor is indeed a form of violence, and it has
manifested in reality for thousands of years. The application of
socialism is seen as the final path to resist such a condition.
As for Hitler’s words, he said about the inhumane exploitation
of workers by industrialists
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/c885836544f019178ff2a6ac35d3259b/9b1c1b937f253084-d0/s1280x1920/3292f506bbf9d1616b517dc54e979215122f5cf2.jpg
HTML https://64.media.tumblr.com/39e0149f3219886601fc8018a3475bb8/9b1c1b937f253084-c9/s1280x1920/1f6b1ade400b5e86df0c7d61290c9c727fcd9b11.jpg
[quote][quote]"you can no longer claim that voluntary action is
inherently ‘non-violent.’"[/quote]
It is true by definition, you moron.[/quote]
Voluntary actions to live competitively and capitalistically
generate social violence; this has been proven in history,
resulting in the exploitation of labor, as well as racism and
colonialism. You must also look at reality, not only study the
definition of “voluntary action.”
[quote][quote]"Even when such people had signed a so-called
voluntary agreement with the landlord, the content of that
agreement actually legitimized arbitrary eviction"[/quote]
They could have chosen to not sign. In particular, they could
have negotiated to remove the eviction clause as a precondition
for signing, if that was what they were worried about.[/quote]
The reality is that landlords have outsmarted signatories when
drafting agreements; ultimately, through their command of words
and writing, they are able to exploit the workers who sign those
contracts. Therefore, so-called voluntary action must be
overcome through the implementation of planned and coordinated
action.
[quote][quote]"Then why does voluntary exchange in the Western
world produce capitalism"[/quote]
Why did voluntary exchange in all non-Western civilizations
never produce capitalism? The real problem is Western
civilization, not voluntary exchange (which has been going on
since prehistory).[/quote]
[quote]Free markets, in different forms, also seem to have
formed in the three other cradles of human civilisation – India,
China and Mesoamerica. Since ancient times China has fluctuated
between free market policies and statist control. The periods of
free markets are those in which China has prospered.
Again, this shouldn’t be a surprise since many of our most
important inventions have originated in China. Only during
recent centuries, when Europe has developed and embraced modern
capitalism, have European civilisations become the dominant
force for growth and technology in the world. Before then this
role fell to the Middle East, China and India – the market
economies of the world. Around a thousand years ago the concept
of Sreni, the first known proto-corporation, evolved in
India.[/quote]
Source :
Nima Sanandaji. (2018, May 16). Capitalism was born in Iraq and
Syria, not invented by Adam Smith. CapX.
HTML https://capx.co/capitalisms-roots-are-in-iraq-and-syria-not-the-pages-of-adam-smith
[quote][quote]"B might also be unaware that the proposed work
contract between B and A will lead to labor exploitation in the
future."[/quote]
It is not exploitation since it is B's proposal.[/quote]
The agreement made by B shows that B, even though acting
voluntarily, does not realize that their agreement leads to
physical and psychological violence as a result of labor bound
to the market laws of uncertainty and competition. Therefore, we
cannot simply justify B’s agreement merely because it was made
voluntarily.
[quote][quote]"Feces"[/quote]
It is because the video is usable that you are able to watch it
and find out what it is about. So by admitting that you know
what the video is about, you have already conceded that the
video is usable (otherwise how do you know what it is
about?).[/quote]
Feces remain a product unfit for consumption, even if presented
in audiovisual form and not directly shown. We cannot discuss
the suitability of a product by talking about “feces”…
#Post#: 30874--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 2, 2025, 7:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"Capitalist practices will continue to exist even if tax
policies reach one hundred percent."
If I make $1 profit per day but all profits above $10 per month
are taxed at 100%, what incentive would I have to do business
more than 10 days per month, you moron?
"the so-called ‘voluntary’ contract masks coercion: workers,
pressed by the need to survive, are forced to submit to
conditions dictated by those who own capital."
[quote]B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I
receive a fixed salary instead, and the net profit or loss can
be all yours?"
A: "OK.[/quote]
Who is dictating conditions to whom, you moron?
"A engages in gambling and obtains winnings, while B is
uncertain of receiving any. Therefore, so that B may still have
financial security, A, as a fellow citizen, must help B by
giving a portion of the money gained."
B already has financial security from not gambling, you moron.
"Voluntary actions to live competitively and capitalistically
generate social violence"
Pick one.
"landlords have outsmarted signatories when drafting agreements;
ultimately, through their command of words and writing, they are
able to exploit the workers who sign those contracts."
If someone doesn't carefully read an agreement before signing,
it is not the fault of the one who wrote it.
"The agreement made by B shows that B, even though acting
voluntarily, does not realize that their agreement leads to
physical and psychological violence"
Pick one.
"Feces"
[quote]It is because the video is usable that you are able to
watch it and find out what it is about. So by admitting that you
know what the video is about, you have already conceded that the
video is usable (otherwise how do you know what it is
about?).[/quote]
#Post#: 30885--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: antihellenistic Date: September 4, 2025, 11:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote][quote]"Capitalist practices will continue to exist even
if tax policies reach one hundred percent."[/quote]
If I make $1 profit per day but all profits above $10 per month
are taxed at 100%, what incentive would I have to do business
more than 10 days per month, you moron?[/quote]
The incentive to engage in production activities is the
intention to address the problem of consumption needs ethically
experienced by consumers. With the hope that when we are no
longer workers in the field of producer management, we will
still be properly served by other managerial workers.
[quote][quote]"the so-called ‘voluntary’ contract masks
coercion: workers, pressed by the need to survive, are forced to
submit to conditions dictated by those who own capital."[/quote]
B: "I don't want to risk losing money. How about I receive a
fixed salary instead, and the net profit or loss can be all
yours?"
A: "OK.
Who is dictating conditions to whom, you moron?[/quote]
B made an agreement with party A, which resulted in economic
competition. This is because B allowed A to continue accepting
the situation in which buying and selling activities may
experience profit or loss due to the uncertainty of market
conditions. Whether B dictates A or vice versa, if their
agreement legitimizes life based on market laws, then B and A
can be absolutely blamed.
[quote][quote]"A engages in gambling and obtains winnings, while
B is uncertain of receiving any. Therefore, so that B may still
have financial security, A, as a fellow citizen, must help B by
giving a portion of the money gained."[/quote]
B already has financial security from not gambling, you
moron.[/quote]
In the scenario you created, in order to obtain money, B and A
must “engage in gambling practices.” Therefore, if we want to
act in a socialist manner, A, who is able to earn money from
gambling, must help B to obtain money as well. Since B is not
prepared to gamble and feels hesitant, A must help B by giving a
portion of the money sufficient to meet B’s basic needs. Even
better, if A considers that gambling causes income uncertainty,
A should end the gambling and have the money that exists and
circulates within gambling be reorganized so it can be
redistributed to people struggling with life, such as B.
[quote][quote]"Voluntary actions to live competitively and
capitalistically generate social violence"[/quote]
Pick one.
...
[quote]"The agreement made by B shows that B, even though acting
voluntarily, does not realize that their agreement leads to
physical and psychological violence"[/quote]
Pick one.[/quote]
Bad behavior will never be right, even if done voluntarily. A
voluntary attitude of defeating others who are innocent is
wrong, and a racist attitude carried out voluntarily is also
certainly wrong. Voluntarism inevitably opens the space for
violence to occur in the first place, whereas discipline will
cultivate empathy within ourselves and our surroundings, even if
we do not yet feel willing to agree to live based on empathy
rather than on practices of competition. You are making an
inaccurate dichotomy of choices
[quote][quote]"landlords have outsmarted signatories when
drafting agreements; ultimately, through their command of words
and writing, they are able to exploit the workers who sign those
contracts."[/quote]
If someone doesn't carefully read an agreement before signing,
it is not the fault of the one who wrote it.[/quote]
If the issuer of an agreement deliberately writes it in a way
that is difficult to understand in order to trap and exploit the
signatory, then as socialists we would oppose the issuer of that
agreement and call them a “fraud.” Just as we judge white
colonialists who made land agreements that confused Black people
who struggled with reading. As a result, those Black people felt
safe signing the agreements, only to have their land taken away
later and in the times that followed. We also apply this way of
thinking when we see Jews making agreements that trap and
confuse Palestinians in order to obtain their land “legally,”
which ultimately led to the creation of Israel. We also apply
this way of thinking when we see the bourgeoisie and landlords
making agreements that entrap workers in order to justify their
exploitative behavior toward those workers.
[quote][quote]Feces"[/quote]
It is because the video is usable that you are able to watch it
and find out what it is about. So by admitting that you know
what the video is about, you have already conceded that the
video is usable (otherwise how do you know what it is
about?).[/quote]
A discussion about proper products also means rejecting unfit
products disguised in any form. This includes not only “feces,”
but also “pornography.”
#Post#: 30912--------------------------------------------------
Re: National Socialists were socialists
By: 90sRetroFan Date: September 8, 2025, 5:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"The incentive to engage in production activities is the
intention to address the problem of consumption needs ethically
experienced by consumers. With the hope that when we are no
longer workers in the field of producer management, we will
still be properly served by other managerial workers."
That has nothing to do with what I asked. You are no longer
debating. You have reverted to talking to yourself.
"B made an agreement with party A"
"B and A can be absolutely blamed"
You are initiating violence.
"if we want to act in a socialist manner, A, who is able to earn
money from gambling, must help B to obtain money as well."
So if A loses the $10 bet, must B give A $5?
"Even better, if A considers that gambling causes income
uncertainty, A should end the gambling and have the money that
exists and circulates within gambling be reorganized so it can
be redistributed to people struggling with life, such as B."
If neither A nor B gamble, then A and B have $10 each. Why
should A give B money?
"Bad behavior will never be right, even if done voluntarily."
Non-violent bad behaviour should be allowed (and arguably even
encouraged). This is how we find out who is inferior. If you use
the threat of violence to discourage non-violent bad behaviour,
you conceal who is inferior.
"A voluntary attitude of defeating others who are innocent is
wrong"
What is wrong with the following?
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eerOqp4GQk
"a racist attitude carried out voluntarily is also certainly
wrong"
We already covered this:
HTML https://trueleft.createaforum.com/questions-debates/re-national-socialists-were-socialists-3223/msg30795/?topicseen#msg30795
[quote]"Racist behavior carried out between both parties
voluntarily is still wrong."
If group P unanimously asks group Q to treat P as the outgroup
and Q as the ingroup, and group Q unanimously agrees, I would
not initiate violence against either group. I would only
prohibit both groups from reproducing.[/quote]
But if P and Q, fearing violence from you, avoid doing the
above, we would never know that they should be prohibited from
reproducing.
"Voluntarism inevitably opens the space for violence"
Pick one.
"discipline will cultivate empathy within ourselves and our
surroundings, even if we do not yet feel willing to agree "
This is exactly what traditionalist parents say while torturing
children. This is why you are my enemy: you are a torturer in
service of tradition.
"If the issuer of an agreement deliberately writes it in a way
that is difficult to understand in order to trap and exploit the
signatory, then as socialists we would oppose the issuer of that
agreement and call them a “fraud.”"
If the signatory has trouble understanding it, the signatory can
refuse to sign. By signing, the signatory expresses willingness
to risk the consequences of whatever the agreement (including
the parts the signatory had trouble understanding) entails.
"A discussion about proper products also means rejecting unfit
products disguised in any form. This includes not only “feces,”
but also “pornography.”"
So you (still) want to ban pornography. Again you are advocating
initiated violence.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page