Define communism for dum 'ol Lancer

[Velociryx]

A member of the faithful to the last.

How predictable.

Even when history and practical economic experience point the other direction, you cling to the faulty beliefs of your "religion."

That's okay...I honestly didn't think you'd get anything out of it, other than what you wanted to, of course.

PS: Since there are apparently a vast number of bald assertions, perhaps you'd care to point them out, or even what "important stuff" he leaves alone....ahhh, but that goes back to an earlier comment. Far easier to simply say it than to actually bring them to light.

That's cool tho...go read some more Marxist fantasy.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

You're going to have to pick out parts of the argument that you want critique on. I'm not going to just pick stuff at random.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm...well, that's interesting, but as I cannot read minds, I really have no way of knowing which of the assertions posted there you consider to be his "bald assertions," nor any way of plumbing the depths of your mind to discern what "important stuff" you feel the author of said critique has left out.

That, my friend, falls to you.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

So I take it that you agreed with everything said?

[Velociryx]

Stop dodging the question. Which parts I agree with, or whether or not I agree with it in its entirety have NOTHING to do with what YOU feel are the author's "bald assertions" or "important stuff" left out of the critique.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I'm not going to critique any argument that no one here agrees with.

[Velociryx]

I expected as much.

Well then, if you need to hear that at least one person agrees with the critique...if that will make you feel better and suddenly validate your counter-critique...then yes, count me as one who accepts the author's explanations as a viable debunking of Marxist theory.

Now...by all means, proceed.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

I'll assume that you accept the whole argument as your own and counter-argue the whole thing then. It's going to take some time though.

[Velociryx]

Please do not feel obliged to construct an entire counter-argument, unless you just simply want to.

I merely asked you to point out what you felt were the author's various "bald assertions" and what "important stuff" he left out.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

You don't even have to go into any detail. A simple "laundry-list" of bald assertions and/or grevious omissions will do. I didn't ask the question in order to facilitate the start of yet another pointless debate with you....only out of idle curiosity.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Please do not feel obliged to construct an entire counter-argument, unless you just simply want to.

I merely asked you to point out what you felt were the author's various "bald assertions" and what "important stuff" he left out.

Pointing things out things that you simply disagree with is not an argument.

I didn't ask the question in order to facilitate the start of yet another pointless debate with you....only out of idle curiosity.

So you present an argument, but you aren't willing to debate it?

[Velociryx]

Jesus Christ, Kid...can you READ? You said:

He mostly makes bald assertions, but there is some logic to it. He mostly argues points that aren't very important, and leaves the important stuff alone.

And in reply, I asked a simple two-part question. What do YOU feel were his "bald assertions" and what "important stuff" did he omit from his analysis?

Note that I did not demand (or even ask) you to argue the point, only what (specifically) you took issue with, per above.

What about that question is so hard to understand?

The only conclusion I can draw from your constant hemming and hawing, dancing frantically around to avoid that relatively straightforward question is that you, as usual, HAVE no answers.

I've made every effort to make it as easy as possible for you, completely removing the requirement to offer the least bit of explanation for WHY you feel this or that is a "bald assertion", and as a student of Marx, it should be fairly easy to spot the "important stuff" the critic missed, so where's the mystery here?

Why the big dance 'round the subject?

Again, I'm only able to draw but a single conclusion.

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

On second thought nevermind. I can see why you wouldn't want me to actually argue the points. It would be a waste of time.

[Velociryx]

If it would make you feel better to delve into a counter-critique in typical Marxist style, then yes please, have a go at it.

That you cannot even answer a simple two-part question asked of you regarding the critique you so easily dismissed is evidence enough that said full-blown counter-critique would be little more than hot air anyways.

But no....at this point, looking for ANY way to weasel out of answering what should be a straightforward question, I can certainly see the attraction to dodge now.

I'll ask it again, just so it's fresh in your mind:

a) What do you believe the author's various "bald assertions" were?

b) What "important Marxist stuff" did the author omit or overlook in his analysis?

-=Vel=-

[Kidlicious]

Too many games for me Vel. I'll pass. Say what you will.