|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 13:17:08 GMT -5
It seems that Frederich Engles is criticizing Capitalism because it brings peace!
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 13:45:14 GMT -5
Looks like Hickery-Do has found an entirely new branch of philosophy to misquote! I wonder when he will shill his new book to Peterson?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 16:13:04 GMT -5
Looks like Hickery-Do has found an entirely new branch of philosophy to misquote! I wonder when he will shill his new book to Peterson?
Let's see how many mistakes you managed to make in just two sentences:
1) "Hickery-do"? Argument by insult. You are aware, aren't you, that changing someone's name is not a refutation of their ideas?
2) "Misquote." Since Hicks posted the original article, the text is up there for everyone to see. So exactly where are these alleged "misquotes?"
3) "Shill" implies something unethical, doesn't it? But you haven't demonstrated that Hicks is doing anything unethical. Do you have any evidence of this?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2019 19:10:56 GMT -5
Looks like Hickery-Do has found an entirely new branch of philosophy to misquote! I wonder when he will shill his new book to Peterson? Let's see how many mistakes you managed to make in just two sentences: 1) "Hickery-do"? Argument by insult. You are aware, aren't you, that changing someone's name is not a refutation of their ideas? 2) "Misquote." Since Hicks posted the original article, the text is up there for everyone to see. So exactly where are these alleged "misquotes?" 3) "Shill" implies something unethical, doesn't it? But you haven't demonstrated that Hicks is doing anything unethical. Do you have any evidence of this? Bob
I could make a few overgeneralizing assertions without providing a single direct quote from Hicks. By the standards of evidence established by Hicks, that's sufficient evidence that my arguments are valid. You can read all about my objectively true arguments in my next book, where I elaborate on my very own philosophy, Trueism.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 12, 2019 20:36:12 GMT -5
Let's see how many mistakes you managed to make in just two sentences: 1) "Hickery-do"? Argument by insult. You are aware, aren't you, that changing someone's name is not a refutation of their ideas? 2) "Misquote." Since Hicks posted the original article, the text is up there for everyone to see. So exactly where are these alleged "misquotes?" 3) "Shill" implies something unethical, doesn't it? But you haven't demonstrated that Hicks is doing anything unethical. Do you have any evidence of this? Bob
I could make a few overgeneralizing assertions without providing a single direct quote from Hicks. By the standards of evidence established by Hicks, that's sufficient evidence that my arguments are valid. You can read all about my objectively true arguments in my next book, where I elaborate on my very own philosophy, Trueism.
Since Hicks did provide a lengthy quote in his article, your innuendo here is totally false.
The article is posted at the top of this thread. You might try reading it before posting your opinions.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2019 17:11:44 GMT -5
Sorry, I adhere to Trueism, not Falseism.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 13, 2019 19:51:40 GMT -5
Sorry, I adhere to Trueism, not Falseism.
Well Golly Gee, if you say so then it must be true.
Actually though, it might be better if you had some FACTS to back up your claims instead of just asking us to just take your word for it.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 9:53:46 GMT -5
Sorry, I adhere to Trueism, not Falseism. Well Golly Gee, if you say so then it must be true. Yes, it's true that I follow Trueist philosophies rather than Falseist ones.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2019 10:20:14 GMT -5
Well Golly Gee, if you say so then it must be true. Yes, it's true that I follow Trueist philosophies rather than Falseist ones.
But apparently you don't follow the Reasonist philosophy because you aren't giving any reasons at all for your your claims.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 14, 2019 19:04:39 GMT -5
You didn't ask me for my reasons, did you?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 14, 2019 19:22:47 GMT -5
You didn't ask me for my reasons, did you?
This is the FACTS Board. You are always expected to give your reasons.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 8:12:49 GMT -5
Why?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 12:29:37 GMT -5
From the Rules of the FACTS Board:
"But critical thinking demands we examine any claims made for their clarity of thought, their logic, their use of evidence."
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 12:47:15 GMT -5
So, you have examined those rules for their clarity of thought, their logic, and their use of evidence? What were your results?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 14:50:11 GMT -5
So, you have examined those rules for their clarity of thought, their logic, and their use of evidence? What were your results?
Looks clear enough to me. Do you have any criticism?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2019 22:04:57 GMT -5
Well, then. I've examined my position for its clarity of thought, its logic, and its use of evidence, and it looks fine to me.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 15, 2019 22:26:20 GMT -5
Well, then. I've examined my position for its clarity of thought, its logic, and its use of evidence, and it looks fine to me.
Well the only way to settle this is to get back to our discussion.
This quote is directly from Engles:
“You have brought about the fraternization of the peoples — but the fraternity is the fraternity of thieves. You have reduced the number of wars — to earn all the bigger profits in peace, to intensify to the utmost the enmity between individuals, the ignominious war of competition! When have you done anything ‘out of pure humanity,’ from consciousness of the futility of the opposition between the general and the individual interest? When have you been moral without being interested, without harboring at the back of your mind immoral, egoistical motives?”
Friedrich Engels, “Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy.” Quoted in Tom Palmer, editor, After the Welfare State, Jameson Books/Students for Liberty/Atlas Network, 2012, p. 37.
Engles doesn't seem to think reducing the number of wars is good if it increases economic competition. But wars kill. Why would Engles rather see people killed in war than see them compete economically?
Bob
|
|
ppnl
Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by ppnl on Apr 16, 2019 23:50:02 GMT -5
The claim isn't that capitalism is bad because it brings peace. The claim is that capitalism is bad despite bringing peace. Engles seemed to believe that capitalism would cause things worse than wars. You can disagree with him. You can point to history and argue that so far he seems to have been empirically wrong. But you should not misunderstand or misstate his claim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2019 7:34:13 GMT -5
I mean, of course Engels was factually wrong. Capitalism has not brought peace, this much is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 17, 2019 12:57:24 GMT -5
The claim isn't that capitalism is bad because it brings peace. The claim is that capitalism is bad despite bringing peace. Engles seemed to believe that capitalism would cause things worse than wars. You can disagree with him. You can point to history and argue that so far he seems to have been empirically wrong. But you should not misunderstand or misstate his claim.
I stand corrected. Thank you.
And yes, based on the rise in the standard of living in the last 150 years, the steady conquest of disease, the many labor-saving devices (including the computers and internet which enable us to have this conversation!) and the many other advances, I would argue that Engles was empirically wrong.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 17, 2019 13:05:32 GMT -5
I mean, of course Engels was factually wrong. Capitalism has not brought peace, this much is a fact.
Really? Except for the ethnic violence in Yugoslavia in the 1990's, what war has gone on in Europe?
The Korean War and Indochina War were clashes between Capitalist and Communist nations.
How many clashes have there been between Capitalist Democracies since WWII?
Trading partners don't attack each other. It's bad business to kill your customers.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 3:55:44 GMT -5
I mean, of course Engels was factually wrong. Capitalism has not brought peace, this much is a fact. Really? Except for the ethnic violence in Yugoslavia in the 1990's, what war has gone on in Europe? LOL do you literally believe that capitalism hasn't existed before 1991? Here are only military conflicts the US participated in, in the 20th and 21st century, that were not WW2, Korea, or the Vietnam War, and in which no communists participated: - The Crazy Snake Rebellion (AKA the genocide against the Creek people)
- Mexican Border Wars AKA The Border Campaign 1910-1919
- Occupation of Nicaragua
- Occupation of Haiti
- Occupation of the Dominican Republic
- 1st World War
- Dominican Civil War
- Shaba War (AKA "Shaba II")
- Lebanese Civil War
- Invasion of Grenada
- Bombing of Libya
- 2nd Gulf War (AKA "Gulf War" in America)
- Intervention in Haiti
- Kosovo War
- War in Afghanistan
- 3rd Gulf War (AKA the invasion of Iraq, AKA "War in Iraq" in America)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 4:20:09 GMT -5
Here are just the armed conflicts in Europe since 1990: - Basque Country Conflict
- Bosnian War
- Kosovo War
- Chechnya War
- Ukrainian Separatist War
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 4:21:54 GMT -5
I guess you don't count the pre-WW1 imperialist regimes of Europe as "capitalist"? Because if you do, then capitalism conquered most of the known world just two centuries ago.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 14:55:34 GMT -5
Really? Except for the ethnic violence in Yugoslavia in the 1990's, what war has gone on in Europe? LOL do you literally believe that capitalism hasn't existed before 1991? Here are only military conflicts the US participated in, in the 20th and 21st century, that were not WW2, Korea, or the Vietnam War, and in which no communists participated: - The Crazy Snake Rebellion (AKA the genocide against the Creek people)
- Mexican Border Wars AKA The Border Campaign 1910-1919
- Occupation of Nicaragua
- Occupation of Haiti
- Occupation of the Dominican Republic
- 1st World War
- Dominican Civil War
- Shaba War (AKA "Shaba II")
- Lebanese Civil War
- Invasion of Grenada
- Bombing of Libya
- 2nd Gulf War (AKA "Gulf War" in America)
- Intervention in Haiti
- Kosovo War
- War in Afghanistan
- 3rd Gulf War (AKA the invasion of Iraq, AKA "War in Iraq" in America)
There was never a claim that Capitalism eliminated war. The claim was that it minimized war because war interfered with trade.
Exactly how many of the wars you listed here were wars? between trading partners?
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 14:57:44 GMT -5
Here are just the armed conflicts in Europe since 1990: - Basque Country Conflict
- Bosnian War
- Kosovo War
- Chechnya War
- Ukrainian Separatist War
All of these wars were also ethnic conflicts.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 15:25:54 GMT -5
I guess you don't count the pre-WW1 imperialist regimes of Europe as "capitalist"? Because if you do, then capitalism conquered most of the known world just two centuries ago.
Actually, if you go back before the French Revolution of 1789, most of the world had already been conquered by European Mercantilist Powers. Well before the Industrial Revolution happened, Mercantilist Europe was in possession of most of the world.
The entire Western Hemisphere was under the rule of Spain, Portugal, and Britain. France had bid holdings too until the French and Indian War.
Britain already ruled most of India (through the East India Company). The Dutch had already taken over the East Indies.
Africa was the only thing left. Even there, the Dutch ruled South Africa while Portugal rules Angola and Mozambique.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 18:56:26 GMT -5
Here are just the armed conflicts in Europe since 1990: - Basque Country Conflict
- Bosnian War
- Kosovo War
- Chechnya War
- Ukrainian Separatist War
All of these wars were also ethnic conflicts. Bob
So why didn't Capitalism bring peace, then?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2019 18:58:40 GMT -5
There was never a claim that Capitalism eliminated war. The claim was that it minimized war because war interfered with trade. Really? Where did you make that claim?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Apr 18, 2019 20:14:48 GMT -5
All of these wars were also ethnic conflicts. Bob
So why didn't Capitalism bring peace, then?
It did bring peace to countries that were trading partners. Ethnic conflicts by contrast have deeper roots that go back before the Capitalist system. For one thing, the Balkan countries kept putting tariffs on each others goods. That reduced trade.
Bob
|
|