[Despanan]

I was actually going to say the same thing.
This thread is called "what's wrong with capitalism"
I have argued about what is wrong with capitalism, and how it's not justifiable. I have repeated myself countless of times, saying how all these arguments simply defend capitalism by no virtue of capitalism itself.
I keep talking about how you people justify it, and yet you avoid that word. I tell you examples of benevolence that are still unjustifiable, such as that of a benevolent slave master, to which Desp bitched and called me a racist (but I'll be damned if I make an ad hominem).
And you sidestep the issue of benevolent people still not being an excuse to defend an unjustifiable system.

Tell me your understanding of how is it that I sidestep the question, when you blatanly even fucking lied, saying I don't believe there are benevolent people as capitalists - something that completely contradicts my fucking argument.

Okay, so I KNOW this is pointless. I KNOW Alan is not a rational person, but I also know that he's going to continue to shit up this thread, so I figure, beyond regular mockery, I might show everyone how wrong Alan is mathematically.

Alan Claims:

Originally Posted by Alan

Why do you justify capitalism when all the positive aspects of society Kontan and you have mentioned are those which are against capitalism, an obstacle to capitalism for the sake of socialist respect for human dignity?

While I do not agree with this, let's just pretend that he's right, Capitalism is hate and exploitation incarnate, and we have been unable to bring up any reasons to like capitalism yadda, yadda. A capitalist cannot ever be good, Therefore we must take it as a truism that all capitalists are bad.

This notion is of course ridiculous so to cover it up he THEN argues:

Originally Posted by Alan

I argue that there are benevolent capitalists just as there were benevolent masters and benevolent feudal lords and benevolent dictators

Thus Capitalism has the potential to be good, if and only if, the capitalist ignores capitalism and behaves well in spite of capitalism. Thus we have this claim:

capitalism is good, if and only if, it is not capitalism.

IE: A = B if and only if A /= A.

Therefore, logically, a benevolent capitalist/feudal lord/slaveowner cannot exist ever, period, even though Alan claims in the same statement that they do.

Now not only has he contradicted himself, but his assertion is obviously untrue.

Now, this epic fucking logicfail is, in essence very similar to the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Now I could also point out that equating an economic system with a political system and then also a moral system is shaky ground at best, but why bother? Jillian is running on his own definition of capitalism, and his mind is far too turned-in on itself to ever allow for the possibility that he is wrong. I might speculate that this is due to the fact that his political ideals are so closely tied into his own identity that it's impossible for him to separate "Alan" from "Anarchist" but that's really just idle speculation.

So I'm just gonna think about that crazy, crazy old man living in his rickety bat infested mansion, dreaming up a socialist utopia run on universal slavery.