Far-right "Proud Boys" filmed beating protesters in New York - Polidicks

Learn to read your own. You literally said Capitalism is about the ability of owning a private business while "State Capitalism" is the state owning a business which makes it not private. no, i quoted your definition, read your post do you want a picture? i can get one. https://i.imgur.com/C1rWmOj.png this is your post, it contains the definition you wrote it contains the definition of which i quoted from your post, there's no disputing it, you clearly have not written your own post. you are either trolling or you really are not a smart man if you're trying to argue this point.

I didn't write that definition, that was a definition that already existed. You used it yourself as well. You using it yourself and without giving an alternative definition it's going to be assumed that is the definition. So explain how you can have State Capitalism when the definition of Capitalism that has been used by both of us involves private ownership. In fact when I google "Capitalism", the first 5 definitions also involve private ownership. This is generally considered the core of capitalism. A state run Capitalism isn't Capitalism because it is owned by the state, not a private person.

The guy who coined Godwin’s law says it’s accurate to all Trump a fascist lol

https://i.imgur.com/HyQELC0.png my post contains a definition, yes it does, it's right there, you'd see it if you had actually read the post A state run Capitalism isn't Capitalism because it is owned by the state, not a private person. then prove state capitalism wrong convince me that china does not exist, as it is a state capitalist economy with a communist state.

I wasn't trying to do a "Gotcha", I was making a point. Most people (especially people who consider themselves Anti Fascist) don't actually know what Fascism is and instead mislabel anything they don't like as it. It's so well known that there is even a "law" based off of it.

Yes, for State Capitalism, I did read your post. I was saying how it cant actually be Capitalism and fit into the definition of Capitalism. then prove it wrong. it's capitalism, it's not capitalism that fits your narrative, but it's capitalism. so support your own argument and prove to me that state capitalism is magical and just disappeared. i would like to hear that china does not exist, because it's in fact, state capitalism.

You meant out of State Capitalism. It has been transitioning out of it for the last few decades and it's economy has improved doing so. How do you define communism? If it isn't practicing communism how is it communist?

How do you define communism? If it isn't practicing communism how is it communist? it's not practicing economic communism it's practicing social communism, learn the difference. china can be communist without having a communist economy. Modern-day China is mainly characterized as having a market economy based on private property ownership,[302] and is one of the leading examples of state capitalism. found that in about 30 seconds, wasnt hard to find, just had to actually read it. you'd be capable of it too if you would read too.

You have to define what social communism is. That quote doesn't explain how state capitalism is actually capitalism given the definition of capitalism.

You have to define what social communism is. it's already been defined on this thread and by you numerous times the difference is that you're not seeing the differences between economic and social policy, and you still arent. That quote doesn't explain how state capitalism is actually capitalism given the definition of capitalism. it's not supposed to, you're missing the point of it. whether or not the quote actually defines capitalism is entirely irrelevent the quote's used to prove that china is in fact state capitalist, which you've yet to disprove.

I argued with metist in a thread about brexit once (now deleted) it's not worth bothering he will just keep misunderstanding or pretend to misunderstand over and over.

yeah im about done with him even though i found his narrative pretty entertaining, there's only so much until the novelty wears off.

A very clear example of Sealioning.

Except State Capitalism is just a term made to say "See it's not communism" but in actuality it isn't Capitalism. It does when the argument is if it is Capitalism or not. State Capitalism is an oxymoron because by definition it is not Capitalism. This is all in a sad attempt to try to say that all of these communist countries aren't actually communist by messing around with the definitions of things and yet even given the definition China isn't state Capitalist because it doesn't even fit that definition. I'm sorry I actually have a different opinion. Maybe try making an argument instead of crying about how you don't like that I disagree.

I... don't know. I'm a bit conflicted because Gavin McInnes reminds me a bit of Sam Hyde and his antics. Gavin is a pretty funny dude, and of his shticks are hyperbole and parody. The issue is that there is a line blurred as in the extremity of his political beliefs as a result. And, you can see the guys in those videos; they are the types I would expect to have migrated from 4chan to FitBoard (Bodybuilding.com Forums) after being self-aware of their insufficiency. I find it hard to take them seriously because of that. Gavin (and everyone else on CRTV) purveys victim hood for being a conservative. There's no surprise then that they stand steadfast and with wholehearted conviction in their beliefs. In the eyes of the Proud Boys, they see themselves as standing up for themselves against some leftist thugs. In reality, they're incredibly delusional and have stepped too far.

while i think engaging you is proving pointless i'll drop this explanation in, just for good measure. the idea with calling all these self-professed communist countries state capitalist is the idea that the state itself serves as sole capitalist, because if you look at the relations of ownership of means of production and hierarchy between workers and bosses, nothing really changes in these places. its like one huge monopoly with a police and secret police force. while it would be wrong to say "its not true socialism", it is entirely correct to say it isnt true communism, if we go by the original meaning of the term. you just happen to be using a different meaning (we've gone through this already) when using the word communist from everyone and insisting that they are all wrong. in the end this all comes down to you having one definition for the term communist, while everyone else arguing with you having a different, more nuanced one. the argument whether a thing is "real communism" or "real socialism" is semantic and mind-numbingly stupid becuase neither of these words has a single accepted meaning any longer. this isnt like the term "fascism" which has very clear tenets and generally accepted ways to get there, some regional variations notwithstanding. are you aware there are radically different forms of socialism, and, and this might surprise you, radically different forms of communism - some of which arent even marxist? they all share some concern for economic and social justice (which they see as inseparable) but they very widely disagree on the way to get there, some even abhorring the very idea of a state mediating the transition into such a classless state - some even mocking the very idea such a state is possible. this entire argument is pointless semantics and anyone who further fuels it after understanding this fact is wasting their time unless they derive joy from this type of thing. this post might be quoting you, but its not directed solely at you but also to the people trying to respond to your posts. either own the fact that all that this is is verbal masturbation, or go home.

Prove it. This claim that people are being falsely accused of being fascist gets thrown around constantly without evidence. If you think this is the case, cite a source to back it up.

You can define communism to be whatever you want, that's not the point. The point is that not only is State capitalism not actually Capitalism, but China isn't even state capitalist by the definition of the word. The fact that every time communism is tried to turns into "not communism" in no way makes communism more viable however even if we don't want to consider "communist" countries communist.

godwin's law isn't a real logical fallacy, just a funny observation about internet arguments and even then, it's only funny because most things debated on the internet have fuckall to do with nazis. it's poking fun at unwarranted comparisons. of course it doesn't hold when the topic is actual nazis and this makes no sense

Except it's not. People getting attacked by in large aren't Nazis. You just label them as such. You are only supporting the law by not being able to tell you are obeying it. That is the point of Godwin's Law, eventually something that isn't a Nazi will get compared to them. People who happen to be more right wing than the members of Antifa for example. Put your thinking cap on.

You made the claim that people are being falsely accused of being fascist, prove it. People here have made the claim that the people who do this shit: https://youtu.be/zcoYKuoiUrY?t=33m2s have things in common with fascists. If you're going to claim they don't, then you're gonna need some serious evidence to back up the argument that people chanting "gas the k---- race war now" and "blood and soil" somehow aren't fascist.

no you labeled them as such, i was using it because you said it in your post lol

Oh so it's guilty until proven innocent? Here are some things. Fact: The Proud boys aren't Fascists. From the founder . "In January, when I met Gavin McInnes, the founder of a “pro-Western fraternal organization” called The proud boys. I asked whether I should refer to him as alt-right. “Nope,” he said, swigging from a can of Budweiser. “They care about the white race. We care about Western values.” Also this again might surprise you but being racist doesn't = being fascist. You can actually find a real actual racist person but that doesn't make them a Fascist. So not only do you not have proof that they are Fascist, I have proof that some of the people labeled as such aren't. Maybe if you go around claiming someone if Fascist you should actually back up your claim. I very rarely see people actually do and in the case of this thread and threads like it I have not once seen someone back it up.

While it's unfortunate that so many people here took the bait, it's at least comforting to know that FP values the truth and facts enough to not permit flagrant ignorance and misinformation to stand unchallenged. And it's not like it's completely pointless, either. Just because the far-right kool-aid club wants to call the argument equivalent of shitting their pants in public a win doesn't mean other people aren't going to read this thread and immediately notice. If a thread is going to be derailed, I'm glad it was at least to publicly obliterate a series of politically, historically illiterate non sequiturs. These people need to be made a clear example of, to be demonstrated for the shallow and self-delusional worms they are. Arguments made in bad faith are not dissenting opinions to be treated with respect, but diversion tactics to be derided and quarantined to prevent them from muddying the waters. If nothing else, this is the good that comes from threads like these.

Except State Capitalism is just a term made to say "See it's not communism" but in actuality it isn't Capitalism. then prove it prove to me that china is not state capitalist. You can define communism to be whatever you want, that's not the point. The point is that not only is State capitalism not actually Capitalism, but China isn't even state capitalist by the definition of the word. The fact that every time communism is tried to turns into "not communism" in no way makes communism more viable however even if we don't want to consider "communist" countries communist. again, prove it. you've made no actual attempt to prove it, you've just been trying to twist the burden of proof onto me ive given tons of info on why you're wrong and you just wont accept it. Notice how you are "Done" as soon as you realize you lost the argument? ok big dick johnson, refute my claims then

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gUmLjTOkHzs

Yep, that's the quality of debate I would expect. I love it, actually arguing is shitposting while posting literal shit is facts and truth. That's pretty much all the socialist of this thread have done. But go ahead and explain how the above post and the ones like it are actual arguments. You can't argue, you have lost so many times that you have to go "Well he is just shitposting". I have proven that The Proud boys aren't Fascists but you will keep insisting they are. Can you make even a single argument?

Who qualifies as fascist in your opinion?

Well to start by the simple fact that State Capitalism is an oxymoron. I have used the definition of both terms to show this. But even outside of that by your definition State Capitalism must be "A dominance of corporatized government agencies or of publicly listed corporations". While it is true that state owned corporations are still a powerful force in China they do not "dominate" the economy. Private business is now making up the majority of growth in China. Source http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-03/06/c_137020127.htm At least you are willing to have a debate. It's better than posting a literal piece of shit and going "Hurr I won because shitposts count as arguments now".

while private businesses do make up a majority of growth, they're not private in the same aspect as something over here or in europe the reason "state" is in there isn't becuase the businesses themselves are state owned, it's because the market for them and resource distribution is state owned. ultimately the reason it's capitalist in nature is becuase while they're still working for profit, as companies do in capitalism, that capital ends up being state owned. china may have privatization and privately owned companies, but they aren't just randomly founded and generally have to go through quite a process to get where they are. they've done this because it allows for them to control what goes in and out while they dont have to control how the company is run. e; if china weren't state capitalist they wouldn't be able to control the internet in their country like they do, becuase while the company that provides it is privately owned, the state still has the ultimate jurisdiction over what they do, and challenging that authority would be near impossible. furthermore there are plenty of countries that aren't communist and aren't state capitalist that have government regulated businesses, they're privately owned but they are government funded and regulated. canada for example, not a state capitalist nation liquor stores are privately owned, government approved and regulated. essentially, state capitalism doesn't outright bar profit, it only controls the market so that the state can force a company to do whatever almost entirely at will.