you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (17 children)

glorified goon squads that represses us while protecting their precious private property for them

Yeah, this never ever happened in human history before capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Ok, liberal... find me an example of a state-funded murder-institution dedicated to the protection of private property before the advent of capitalism.

    Should be easy for an enlightened shitlib like you, eh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [+] -11 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    What's the issue with their answer?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    You liberals seem to be having a hard time understanding what basic words mean... so here. I'll post the challenge again.

    Find me an example of a state-funded murder-institution dedicated to the protection of private property before the advent of capitalism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (9 children)

    You're not really describing what the issue what with their answer though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    Not him, but feudalism wasn't a state sponsored system in the modern sense. There was no bureaucratic, state-funded army or police force enforcing property rights. Each Lord maintained their own. Also, private property didn't really exist. Land was held in a feif. Feudal institutions were set up to maintain feudal obligations and social order based on land tenure and status or whatever, not to protect private property or markets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    I think you are reading a bit too into a single word quip to a leading question; asked by someone who doesn't particularly seem to be open to discussion, based on their use of slurs.

    If you strictly adhere to modern concepts - whose rise is after the advent of state capitalism and intrinsically tied to it - you are obviously not going to find a counterexample to the question. It is however, also wholly unsatisfying, as it is by technicality: you would both be requiring something to adhere to (and follow) modern concepts and precede modern concepts.

    As such, make an analogy where things are sufficiently similar, so that the primary point still stands. If you consider the soldiers and guards under nobility as a state funded (tax funded) group to protect them and their interests and land (their fief) (for example of the merchants they associate with) as private property; things still line up.

    The point is that people in power sending muscle after those they don't like to protect their interests and those of their group wasn't invented with state capitalism. It is just state capitalism is returning to its feudal roots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (5 children)

    You mean apart from the fact that it doesn't meet the challenge in any way whatsoever?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Is the explanation offered by the poster above not good enough for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments