Why can't you guys debunk Ben Shapiro? Is it because lefties are too obsessed with their feels to care about reals?

Why can't you guys debunk Ben Shapiro? Is it because lefties are too obsessed with their feels to care about reals?

youtube.com/watch?v=wWH9vZjBTS4

youtube.com/watch?v=4ZTEbhO5PiE

youtube.com/watch?v=NP9Np6g_TZc

Other urls found in this thread:

c4ss.org/content/41130
marxists.org/archive/tito/1950/06/26.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

eceleb thread

...

just autistic screeching and no actual arguments, typical libtards

1st video.

Socialism is not big gubbmint. It's an economy where workers own the means of production. Anything else is lies. Because he has such a stupid definition of socialism we can pretty much throw the rest of this video straight in the garbage but for the sake of argument I soldiered on and watched the rest.

Capitalism is not a voluntary exchange among equals. It necessitates people be unequal in order to exchange their labor for the surplus value of said labor to capitalists.

Health insurance makes no sense because it adds an unnecessary middle man to pool peoples money together, when the state can just as easily do the same thing without a middle man, pooling more money together and with a stronger fist to negotiate against pharmaceutical companies with. It saves everyone money and it doesn't put peoples health in the hands of CEO's who are constantly thinking of cost cutting measures and denials of treatment to increase their bottom line. It also doesn't necessarily have to increase the size of the state as substantially as conservatives fear monger it can easily be an added savings like Social Security or medicaid which would add very little work or funds necessary to implement.

It's funny that right wingers still say the only reason "socialism" works in the Nordic countries is "homogeneous culture" and yet they will also say those countries are hell holes because of Islamic immigrants raping everyone. I've never heard of a car costing double in Nordic countries, gas costs more like it does in most Euro countries, but most European countries are less car reliant than the US and for good reason it's a waste of money and resources and it pollutes more to use your car nearly every time you have to do anything in the US. It costs more because the US and OPEC screw the rest of the world, not because of any policies in said countries.

His argument that the euro countries are reliant on the US militarily is true, but what he omits in that argument is it is also true for American companies abroad. Meaning the corporations and the "free market" he jizzes over at night is reliant on a large military to halt protectionism, enact neoliberalism, make real corporate "person-hood," escape other countries litigation/regulation and force people to continue to use our currency none of which would happen if the US wasn't the world bully and forced itself in every market possible. I can just taste that freedom and voluntary exchange. MMMMm good.

It's also doubly hypocritical because Ben supports Israel, us defending it and subsidizing it on a regular basis. There is no bigger Welfare queen than Israel and yet Ben cant prostrate himself enough in his defense of them.

Capitalism violates the same three commandments he accuses "socialism" of violating and increases peoples chances of transgressing a lot of the other ones out of consumerist envy and desperation. "Theft" is a social concept based around societal laws and mores, since he has yet to prove that his definition is either iron clad or tied to some indispensable law of nature I'll call this "feels not reals" on his part.

2nd video:

There has never been a time in history when entrepreneurship was jacked off as a concept more. See the video in the side bar to see how hard the "supposed evil" left he hates tries to pander to capitalist ideas like "small business and entrepreneurship." Democrats are as enamored with big business and capitalism as he is, they are just tsundere in public about their love. You'll also find that as we go back in history capitalists were less respected not more, his victimization is a self imposed delusion and I'll add that Ben has not created anything except fiction books that I wouldn't even say merit a one 1 star rating as that would be giving them too much attention and credit. Luckily the world agrees with me and they bombed faster than a drone attack at a Yemeni wedding.

More mischaracterizations of what socialism is… Yawn.

3rd Video.

A repeat of the same shitty talking points at the end of the the first video.

I've concluded this to be accurate.

sage goes in all fields.

Skeletons can dance.

so let me guess, the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nazi Germany weren't "true" socialism?

Have you ever read the slightest bit of socialist theory?

nigga wat

Kek, OP got btfo and has to change the subject

I didn't know it was meme time.

nice no true scotsman fallacies libtards

can someone explain the meme to me?
already saw people talk about it in another thread; why do people pretend this has anything to do with that fallacy?

i mean why do people say "socialism has never been tried" is a no true scotsman fallacy?

Reported for being a faggot cuck

because it has been tried many times and always fails

But then if it has been tried many times how can you say that capitalism works, cuck?

If capitalism worked, we wouldnt see revolts against it

You know this argument can be reversed as well right? I say capitalism is sweat shop east Asia, debt destroyed Greece & Ireland and civil war ridden African countries that fight for resources at the behest of western conglomerates. You can then say b-b-but that is not der capitalism I like and believe in, Me sirs! Then I can yell "no true Scotsman" like an autist without considering your definition at all.

capitalism works, it's the reason why you're typing this message on your iphone right now and not starving in a bread line

No, markets work, capitalism stops markets from working properly

My tablet would be better without planned obsolescence and intellectuql property

What, did you expect everyone here to be a central planning nerd? Lol cuck

Do you know the origin of the term?

Fuck

so what do you propose, a socialist market (an oxymoron)?

Why those guys like to compare everything to rape?

because socialism is basically rape

Try reading a book before outing yourself as an inbreed retard

...

Sorry to break your bubble m8, but market socialism is a thing.

Fucking sage this thread

lefties just want to censor people because they know they can't compete on the free market of ideas


that's like saying centrally planned capitalism is a thing, it makes no sense

Ben Shapiro is a dumb manlet

Wow, you are even more fucking stupid than I thought

Wrong, your ideas are worthless

central planning (socialism) is the opposite of capitalism

Wrong, command economies are the opposite of markets, planned economies are in reality artificial markets, planning can happen in a centralized or decentralized manner

Hit yourself in the back of the head for me

Have you ever heard of Anarchism ?

what does anarchism (no government control) have to do with socialism (total government control)?

Proudhon was the first modern Anarchist
He also was a socialist
Bakunin who was an Anarchist also called himself a Socialist

c4ss.org/content/41130
Socialism: an economic system characterized by *social* ownership of the means of production - in other words, workers' ownership and management of anything which produces value.
This is the definition of socialism as agreed upon by every type of socialist - from anarchists to orthodox Marxists to Leninists to utopians.
A market economy with worker-owned firms (cooperatives) being the only kind of firm would qualify as socialist. It has its proponents and its critics, but it is undeniable that it is socialist.
State ownership alone does not equal socialism, as it does not intrinsically lead to social ownership. In fact, anarcho-syndicalists such as myself would argue that it's fundamentally counterproductive to put anything under state control, or to even have a state.

Now watch as the fag pulls up a fallacy in order to deal with the butthurt of being an illiterate pleb

oh, he's retarded

Notice how they can never give a straight answer? Just leave dude its just a bunch of non-whites calling people who haven't lurked retardec. There's nothing for you here but you should get your definitions straight if you plan on "debating" leftists.

marxists.org/archive/tito/1950/06/26.htm

Sage this thread there is no way anyone can be this retarded. This guy is like a perfect caricature parroting all the bad arguments against socialism you hear.

Nice

Screencapped

I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If all you've ever heard about socialism is "it's evil state ownership that doesn't work and makes everyone poor except for a dictator!", then it must be confusing to hear people use it in its original sense.

This thread is shit, but there might still be hope of OP walking in a spooked capitalist and walking out an de-spooked socialist.

So at what point would a market economy become socialist? If the majority of firms were worker owned? Or how about 75%? Or 99%?

When it has production for use and notnfor exchange

but don't markets inherently produce for exchange?

When all firms are worker-owned and banks are managed by the people themselves. The monetary policy of these mutual banks would ensure that what is produced for exchange is equivalent to what would have been theoretically produced in a production-for-use system.

This was the system proposed by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (the first self-identified anarchist and who defined the word capitalism), the economic system of mutualism. I have my reservations about it, but it's socialist nevertheless.

Good. Now ban everyone in the thread.

But your here…

If they take it completely literal I'll be happy to go back to lurking a board with less shitposters :o)

i just hate the smugness more than the ignorance.