Stupid Capitalist Tricks

[Deesse23]

Firstoff, please give a definition of "slavery" in order to avoid confusion. I suspect you are using this term in a very loose context, so your analogies will fly.

False analogy

False analogy, but please elaborate and demonstrate this to be more than just that if you wish.

Doubling down on false analogy, after it being pointed out.

Straw man, based on a false analogy and shifting burden of proof.

False analogy for the upteenth time, making your objection irrelevant, for the upteenth time.

With the problem being, that "Nazi Germany" was no economic system.
Thank you for providing further evidence for Godwins law however.

False analogy, gross oversimplification respectively (on both sides). 
But please, if you wish, elaborate on "wage slavery" in every capitalist system.

Which is irrelevant to the general question if capitalism is a morally defensible economic system. Silly argument from both sides, again

True, but the bigger problem with that silly analogy is that any country/economy looks good compared to NK.


Your schtick of "capitalism= slavery and slavery = bad" is laughably simple and laughably wrong, just as any ANCAP (i didnt bother to check if those arguments really are part of ANCAP, and giving you the benefit of doubt not to be dishonest here) arguments you tried to counter. Countering bad arguments with equally bad ones is not a good strategy, imho.

1. I suggest you look up the term wage slavery as it is a valid economic term and is hardly obscure ever read Noam Chomsky 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slave...immediate.

2.It's not a false analogy if justification for a system and the profits earned from that system and justification is that both the capitalist and plantation both put risk into the plantation or business  (including the slaves ) Then it''s fair to ask if one would justify slavery the same way they would justify capitalism 

3.Being told to work or starve is wage slavery it's not my fault you don't know that term 

4.It's not doubling down you realize former slaves became slave owners
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison  

5.Strawman of who? It's not a false analogy .Nor am i shifting the burden of proof 

6.Not a false analogy WAGE SLAVERY IS A VALID TERM and can be compared to chattel slavery in a number of ways .

7.The analogy still works because relevant point was innovation the point being evil or immoral systems can innovate thus innovation alone cannot justify a system as good  . Seriously how did you not get that? ,And godwin's law doesn't apply because i'm not saying Capitalism is like Nazi Germany i was point out that just because Nazi innovated didn't make them good . I could just as easily used the USSR or Golden Age Islam the Nazi bit really wasn't needed but it was example of such a system . 

8.If you already validity of wage slavery (a term you should looked up before commenting if you felt i didn't describe thought didn't think i needed too as it's a common leftist term ) And you accept communism has lifted people out of poverty China and India as examples capitalists 

9.No it's not . The Capitalist argues the justification for capitalism is it's ability to  provide necessities for people  and Venezuela's poverty and lack of resource is a result of what happens when Capitalism is absent in a society . While Capitalist critic will point out that those problems stem from corruption not a lack of capitalism 

10.No that's not the problem . The Capitalist argues that South Korea success is due to the presence of capitalism and North Korea's is a lack of capitalism .The Capitalist Critic will point out it wasn't Capitalism that made South Korea prosperous  nor by the way is a lack of Capitalism North Korea's problem 

So to sum up you managed  misunderstand pretty much every point i made . Made no effort to understand a common academically valid term central to the post . But came in guns ablazing anyway 

As i suspected *sigh*, not even an attempt of defining slavery. Just the false equivocation(s) and poor analogies based on those. So i am asking you to give definition of the term for the context in which you use it.

Wage slavery
Your original claim was that "capitalism is wage slavery". Are you claiming, maintaining the claim that every employee who works for a wage is a *slave*?  If so, you need to define your usage of the term *slavery*

Comparison of plantation owners
The original claim you tried to refute was "Capitalist take all the risk thus they should make the profits they do". That has nothing to do with slavery, just with a risk/reward assessment.

You then equivocated being a capitalist with being a plantation owner who has slaves. Noone but you claimed that capitalists need slaves to make profit, just like planation owners. Asking for justification of your equivocation /strawman leads nowhere.

Being told to work or starve is wage slavery
I dont know where you live, but in my country we arent forced ot work or starve. I could stop workign tomorrow and would never starve, and i am living in a country with a capitalist economy.
Yes there are capitalist systems where that is the case, but not all of them. Sorry, your brush is way to broad.

In reference to your 8.: Are you claiming that China is a good example of communism lifting people out of poverty? Maybe there is a language barrier.

...and here i am running out of time

But, yes i know what wage slavery is, thank you for the condescension. Maybe you should realize that we are not in the late 19th century anymore. Since i am not a Noam Chomsky worshipper (although i have read quite a bit of him) i am not very impressed by your name dropping. I pretty much understood what your point was, particularly when i said your modus operandi is "slavery = bad, capitalism = slavery --> capitalism = bad), because thats exactly what you conveyed, didnt you? "Talking about misunderstanding and lack of effort: You should reflect on your usage of the term *slave* and or give a definition of the term in the context you are using it.