Any of the claims you made

It's necessary as you can't prove a negative so you have to attempt to prove your positive claims

Common knowledge isn't always right

For example show me evidence of the USSR being authoritarian from 1920-1953

Explain how this is so

Source for China investing in India

I'm still just seeing claims with no evidence

Show evidence of such

I'm asking because you're just making claims with no evidence

Common knowledge isn't always right

So, it collapsed, during the end of its period 74% of the USSR's former states still wanted it to exist

I'm sorry you can't provide one but in a debate it is usually expected

You still need to show evidence of the authoritarianism

And what I mean, is 74% did and still do support the USSR in their former countries

Simply stating that something must've been right if people want it back

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/29/in-russia-nostalgia-for-soviet-union-and-positive-feelings-about-stalin/

How so

You just gave a false comparison

I still need that evidence

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2018/12/19/nostalgia-for-soviet-union-hits-14-year-high-russia-poll-says-a63884

https://www.documentjournal.com/2019/01/exploring-the-rise-of-soviet-nostalgia-in-russia/\

That's one source of three I just sent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9chetJZw488

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/12/21/why-do-so-many-people-miss-the-soviet-union/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDnIo6q2Wtw

I'm showing evidence you have not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn7Yh78h4dg

Stalin being authoritarian and people being jailed for simply disagreeing

That's not the point. The point is that Stalin and the USSR were and still are popular

So show evidence of those bad parts you claimed please

You're the one not showing evidence

Doesn't matter

As am I

Still need that source my dude

Still don't have that evidence

Also, don't worry I already have evidence to counter your claims

You already have been

What about prior to that

I play guitar as well

Lmao

Show evidence

Good job

That completely ignores all external factors

Show a source

Not necessarily

Show evidence

Here's the thing you ignore all other external factors @Techpriest

You're continuously acting as though this is a one dimensional problem.

But, you're ignoring all external causes other than IQ

Tech

He never fucking cites sources

Nor does he ever fucking address when someone refutes him

He's a fucking wannabe intellectual

It's true, look at the stuff he says, he strings buzz words together and then just repeats talking points seen in headlines of articles

It isn't, because he's a political hipster

He tries to obtain some unpopular or "edgy" opinion to promote

For example earlier he said, "Revolution and Socialism are synonymous" when I pointed out the fact that every monarchy gets over thrown due to discontent with the leader. Or, when I said, "Define Socialism after he said that, he ignores the claim completely and keeps going with his weird counter productive preaching. And some in this server take his nonsense seriously.

@lemonsaw

Look closely at how he talks and you'll see it

No

I think the term is extremely over used and mis used. Along with that, granted to the wrong people.

Capitalism was once revolutionary so therefore capitalism used to be Socialism

Yes

And, Capitalism formed through revolution, yet, Capitalism was not Socialism

Show a source @Techpriest

You're not socialist in Canada

Still not Socialist

@Techpriest I still need a source showing that individual ownership of the means of production has always existed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War

English Capitalist revolution

Who said that

Individual ownership of the means of production is Capitalism

https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution

Revolution of Capitalism in France

Oldest profession is hunter

How so??

That proverb isn't true though, it's a proverb for a reason

But, hunting existed prior. And, the food would then be shared with the tribe

However, show a damn source for that dude

Prior to capitalism there was fuedalism

Prior to the current individual means of production there was feudalism in which a royal family or royal administration ran the means of production

https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1989/xx/transition.html

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/history/the-transition-from-feudalism-to-capitalism-in-europe-history-essay.php

Wdym dude, that would then be royal administration which I said

There was no free-market

You'd have to first give x amount of all products produced to the crown and they could at anytime seize your means

Venice made their money because they traded via the crowns

But, here's the difference, as I said is that now we have a modernized Capitalism and prior to then began market feudalism. Now we currently have that. Prior we had crown held a majority of the economic power

Now the individual holds most economic power

So they did sponsor merchants??

https://jasonwmoore.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Moore-Nature-and-the-Transition-from-Feudalism-to-Capitalism-REVIEW-2003.pdf

https://academic.oup.com/cje/article-pdf/2/2/121/4696414/2-2-121.pdf

Also here are my five sources

Need a source for that part, you don't take into consideration the difficulty which goes into finding a new job including the similarity of wages from one job to another in the same industry. The main reason behind the ideas of Socialism is not a question of morality but of sustainability, the idea of risk isn't important for the issue in Marxism as in Marxism the main goal is to solve internal contradiction, in Capitalism the main goal is profit incentivizing the lowering of wages. Through lowering wages, you then lower the ability of the worker to buy the product. Along with that the theory was written in the 19th century. Hence why we have theoretical additions for the modernized world.

Goodnight everybody

Specifically guillotine

I mean it's a meh story book

Can you do the clapping??

All religion is equally shit

It's just luck dude