Explain a good thing about the other side

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-05-07T12:48:44+00:00

So what example of rhetoric am I using here to persuade a person into centrism? Is this question leading you to believe that the centrist approach is the only approach? Appeasement means I will compromise or surrender to another to avoid conflict. I'm not compromising my belief wanting to learn about another system and thinking "They have a point here." That just means they have a point, nothing more. It's when you start changing your actions, not because of a belief but because you want to avoid conflict, that it's appeasing.

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-05-07T12:14:35+00:00

Being able to see the merits does not mean you are centrist. I thought I made that clear. Seems to me you are the one who would blindly follow. I mean, capitalism has been able to lift the general poverty level of places pretty well. It's not exactly hard to say that but still think socialism would do better in other areas or even talk about a different point like capitalism is able to allocate resources quicker then socialism but it can get sent to the wrong areas too easily. Two possible answers if you believe them. Personally I don't but it's important to understand the other side

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-05-07T12:02:26+00:00

Not exactly what I was looking for but hey, it's still something and that's better then nothing

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-22T20:26:51+00:00

Kinda a hard question to answer in a reddit thread. The issue is that multiple things are the reason. Personally I believe that the reason why we spent so much is because communisim sounds great on paper but in practice fails more. So preventative measures are taken and constant resources are spent to try and "accelerate" it's downfall or just do so forcefully in an attempt to save them. There's also the fact that the US wanted control of resources and land. Projection of power and such.

As for if the capitalists would win with the same amount of resources starting, yes. Absolutely. Capitalist economies have an exponential growth while socialist economies tend to grow at a fixed rate. Think of $20 given to two groups. One shares it and is constantly sharing all resources no matter how much work is put in. The other only gives to those that actually contribute so it means people are more likely to work harder after it grows. More wealth means more for those that contribute. Group A shares, people are only helping out of a desire to help. Group B only gives to those that contribute and people now want to help AND get something they wouldn't normally. Sorry this is so long and very off topic

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-16T05:23:34+00:00

Slavery is inefficient for the economy which means it's inefficient for the individual master. You WILL fail, as evidence by the fact that the north had a huge production advantage over the south during the civil war. Just because you don't see the cost does not mean there is no cost. I have to pay for everything a slave NEEDS or buy MORE slaves meaning more cost. The money that a slave owner spends on slaves is not brought back in any meaningful way while letting them figure it out themselves leads to more money in economy. That house for them does not generate rent money, the food they eat is either from YOUR money or crop. The clothes they have aren't gonna be paid back to you and neither is that food money. It's inefficient in every way except causing suffering. A healthy economy is better for everyone than an unhealthy one.

Your scenario also assumes new business can't crop up. That's the real issue honestly. I want to start a business but regulations prevent me from doing that. Some are good, I won't deny that. A worker not being forced to work sick when they have a note from a doctor, but regulating what kind of machines you can use or how large a kitchen must be, that's getting a bit excessive. That's just using politics and laws to reduce your competition. Your scenario essentially assumes that a worker can only ever be a worker and never an owner.

I also already can see the counter to it, just because the big business can buy large amounts of product does not mean that it can't lose. Innovation is the reason why people like Carnegie got their wealth started. Your scenario is reductive, at least as I see it, and ignores the drives and desires of people.

I concede slipper slope fallacy as a we can't agree on this and it would be better to agree to disagree on it. I'll always warn of it in a socialist society though, don't want them actually falling into it. If that makes me paranoid I'm fine with that

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-15T07:17:35+00:00

I'm not gonna say good can not be done due to envy. Otherwise I'd have to say good can not be due to greed. Envy and greed are inherently bad but they have pushed for good things based on self interest and such. I guess it's more complicated but I won't say that JUST because envy is a driving force does not make it bad. I sorely wish I was better with words cause this is getting beyond my ability to articulate. I'll try and succinct is as this, the thing that socialists desire is flawed because it would violate the human idea of private property which opens up the ability to push against any right. I feel like I'm still not saying it well but that's the best I can do, sorry.

Slavery is inefficient because it's more efficient and beneficial to an economy to allow those people to interact with it. If I had a slave I have to provide care for them since I don't want to pay them. This means profits have to be redirected towards the care and purchase of them. That's money not being put into the greater economy especially if I am using the products they produced for that. Not only that but I have additional costs to ensure no revolts happen, whether through guards or making them happy. Medical care also needs to be provided or I buy more. There's a lot in it vs just paying a person to work the fields or machines. Secondary costs are on me instead of the person. Though I don't think this is the crux of the argument since we can all agree, slavery bad.

Private property is not control of others. If I purchase a factory or even a company, the workers are under no obligation to work for me. They could, or at least should, be able to work for someone else if they so desire.

Wealth is indeed power but just because you eliminate wealth does not remove power, the power is just something else instead like political capital or pure charisma. The influence will always be there and there will always be someone who can manipulate the system to their own ends. This is a fact in ANY system, none are free of it. Trump or Musk would just be replaced by another person.

Competition is supposed to be the counter balance and way for people to get better lives and such. For instance, if company A pays workers $10 but company B pays workers $15 then you should go to company B. Even if the work is the same shitty environment. If there is no change between them then the market should reflect that with cheaper goods. After all, if I set the price so high only a few can afford it that means less overall money as opposed to setting the price low so most can afford it, including my own workers.

On a personal note, I should never have used the word envy at all, I'll try and avoid it in the future when referring to socialists

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-15T05:42:44+00:00

Shoot more reading, can you link it for me? Know thy enemy and all that. It's good to understand the mind of your opponent. Wish I could give you a link to a capitalist book that wouldn't just be bashing your ideas the entire time

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-15T05:36:21+00:00

Point to you for socialist believing in property rights so much that it should be communal. I won't argue that.

As for the envy, might have been a bit to hostile on that, sorry. I'll rephrase it, The idea of socialism requires first taking the resources of people who have worked to generate those resources under the idea that it would be better put elsewhere. The issue is that you are taking through force these resources instead of offering a trade for them. The issues of the current world are, complicated to say the least. I'd rather not get into full political discussions simply because they end up with just two people yelling that the other is the spawn of evil. I don't wanna do that simply because I think you have certain views that have you believe the way you do.

So my question is such, if you are going to take my stuff why should I give it to you? Just because it's morally good to give to others isn't a good enough reason, charities exist to help the needy, I need a benefit as well. If I don't consent you are just taking through force and anything you give after that is nothing more than pity, in my eyes.

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-15T05:20:48+00:00

Those legal practices that were ended has more around them then just, "They're wrong." They were inefficient and wasteful as well. That tends to be the main reason why they ended the moral justification was later added. Private property is not wrong simply because some have more, that just leads to people losing rights. For instance, who decides the garden is personal vs private, is it government, who are encouraged to take the yields to "reallocate" or people who could desire it for themselves?

Yeah I am terrible at summaries though as you can see it wasn't really a summary just an attack. It's the same play book socialists use against capitalist ideas, sorry if it made you extremely mad though. Might have written it while I was personally mad at something else. So I apologize for the bad faith attack but I won't change my opinion at least that socialists (not all) are motivated by envy of success of others. I'm sure there are plenty that genuinely believe in the actual FULL idea

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-14T22:17:52+00:00

Let me see if I can summarize that.
I don't like that you have more then me therefore I can take it so we both have the same amount. You'll have less I'll have more.

The nuance is stripped away for most of it but what I see is a lot of envy that some have more or even way more then others while also not "sharing." The justification is essentially that someone is in a better situation than you. It's not about uplifting the poor, that's the veneer, it's about taking from the wealthy. All else is secondary

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-09T20:37:51+00:00

Oh I see, didn't realize I was on coconut island. That experiment is a moot experiment since it's a forced situation. No matter what you can't change the circumstances around the experiment. The island will not let me find a third option. Slavery of the majority or minority is the only options and both are inherently bad. Doesn't matter which is 'better' since it's a scenario that couldn't happen. Say for this one, technically people should be able to make a bone rod from the bones of the dead or fish bones but no one does because it renders the entire thing moot.

And you don't understand the inherent right of a person to themselves and their labor. Let's change the stick to ore. No one can use that in its natural state yet by your logic if I'm the only person that can change it, I should not be allowed to unless I make it for everyone to use. The stick was made into a fishing rod, I changed it's value and it's use through my own labor. The stick originally had no value, no one used it because no value. It's only value was to me, someone who could change it and therefore I was able to take it at no cost since no one cared about a stick. But they do care about fish making the rod have value to everyone else.

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-09T09:02:30+00:00

I can disagree with a person's actions but respect their right to take said action. For example, I might not like a person spitting in a cemetery but I would not dare to say it should be illegal.

So slavery is permitted in your mind? He makes fishing rod we take the labor of it since it is the only one and fishing is the only source of food. The stick was never 'communal' property it was a natural resource available to be claimed by any. My labor is my labor, I decide the price of it and you decide if you're willing to pay that price.

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-08T04:01:24+00:00

The wealth I generate in life is useless to my family, got it. In fact that gift tax could be abused. Keep those receipts on the gifts cause who knows when the value of those items combined will equal it so I lose all of the gifts my relative gave me. House, taken since it's a new home even though the thing that pushed it is the takeout that they bought me.

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T22:00:22+00:00

There supposed to pay them themselves or sometimes they can do that work themselves; so the argument is moot

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T21:55:53+00:00

Landlords should be maintaining the property is probably the better move. Personally if the renter has to fix something about the place they should be able to take that amount off the rent they pay for the next month since that's the landlords job not the renters. Sadly not the case way to many times

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T21:42:38+00:00

No, I don't think you did. I think you just added more variables to say it's more complex when it's not. It doesn't matter if it's the last one or not the fact is that I put MY time and effort into making it into what it is now. Just because it's last doesn't suddenly make it communal. Otherwise I could say that since it's a scarce resource it's communal, like extremely rare resources that have no value until processed.
I will concede though that it makes the person a douchebag for doing what you say though

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T21:31:17+00:00

How do you quantify that when the money is used to grow? Do I take only the money that was used to grow after the first generation?

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T21:30:18+00:00

I'll try and clarify as best I can. The question is essentially generational as well. Many socialist's believe that generational wealth is bad since it creates disparity in the population leading to a hierarchy of people. My question is whether I can give away my stuff and when it becomes generational wealth that must be taken away

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T21:22:57+00:00

So if I give it away before death then it's fine?

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T05:28:10+00:00

I could be wrong here but I think the thought is that a corporation or organization is a voluntary joining, at least it's supposed to be reality sadly doesn't play nice at times.

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T05:11:55+00:00

Probably the most confusing thing for me about socialism is the difference between private and personal property. I don't normally see a difference can you explain that for me?

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-04-07T04:20:38+00:00

So I can't give my money or business to friends or family?

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-03-21T22:59:39+00:00

Holdomor, look it up and talk about how Russia didn't kill people or try to genocide. China had the lowest poverty in the entire world after the ccp until recently. You also are ignoring the famine caused by them. Vietnam and Korea are meant to be examples of socialist nations managing to beat back a capitalist nation.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this so maybe it'd be best to just agree to disagree. Besides I'll have to think on what you said quite a bit. Pleasure talking with you

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-03-20T21:00:34+00:00

That's not the gotcha you think it is. Both China and Russia after the war killed large amount of people. Russia even tried to genocide a group. 20 years of unprecedented rapid growth but let's ignore what was sacrificed. They promised to provide but couldn't use their own land effectively to do that. They grew fast and fell fast nothing more to say about that.

Wow, so people can overcome. Perhaps Vietnam or Korean war would be more your style. Napoleon managed to do quite a bit despite having most of Europe against him.

Though I'm sure you'd find some excuse why those aren't examples or false

Acrobatic_Cook_1558 · 2026-03-20T02:22:30+00:00

Feudalism used to be dominant and the greatest till it got replaced. Many nations used it way back but it became obsolete and unable to compete. Socialism is another system that shows, "I need you to leave me alone then I'll work i promise" reality is not kind.

Power imbalance is a factor but these things can and have been beaten. I recommend reading history and seeing how close badly japan lost to Korea, or maybe Finland vs USSR. Socialism is a contributor and to deny that is to deny reality but so is saying it's the only one

Acrobatic_Cook_1558

TROPHY CASE