Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Northern Davincia]

If you're a millionaire you can hire people to make money for you and have your net worth grow while you sleep.

With regards to socialism saving lives, there is plenty of proof. Cuba is known for exporting doctors and developing new vaccines for example.

Capitalism meanwhile can't feed Africa or stop preventable disease because it's not profitable.

And now to the baker. If a baker is ten times a productive, that means that a bakery could just hire 10 normal bakers to put out the same profit. If the talented baker wants 10 times more pay than a regular baker, the bakery gains nothing. The baker must accept regular pay, and then his rate of exploitation would actually be higher than average. He gains nothing, and looses more.

Millionaires, more often than not, are in direct control of their business. They are active participants and organize everything below them.

Cuba is a poor example when the Castro regime has had plenty executed over the years. Capitalism is borderline nonexistent in Africa's poorest nations, and foreign aid worsens the situation.

You're ignoring my point; other bakeries would find more value in a skilled baker and thus try to entice him into leaving a bakery that treats him poorly.

[Orostan]

We manage with humans calculating prices, and that takes a lot longer than a nano-second.

Humans calculate prices via supply and demand and the logistics of both. People cross the border from Illinois to Missouri in the St. Louis metro area to save on everything for gas to groceries (lower taxes in Missouri). Gas is generally cheaper in Missouri (we're next to the trunk of the refinery and pipeline network from the Gulf of Mexico to the Midwest up the Mississippi River) than other parts of the country where the gasoline supply has to be trucked in over roads, at additional costs.

Socialism doesn't understand logistics. Logistics are real. Ignoring reality causes carbuncles lol

So, is your argument that a socialist economy cannot organize the distribution of products? That would be the easiest part of economic planning. All that would have to be done is to have several large distribution cooperatives fill demand by transporting stuff from factories and other industries.

Even without a computer system, planning is still possible. Hell, Capitalism is just a bunch of tiny command economies competing. You haven't actually refuted anything in TANS because the book has already adressed your arguments.

Citatation needed. Oh wait, you need to read my arguments first. Instead of quoting parts of posts and ignoring the rest so you can keep going in circles, implying I'm lying, and repeating your read a stupid book over and over mantra as if there is a magical iteration of stupid that stops being stupid.

My citation is the fucking book. Using vectors to calculate labor values instead of a table saves a lot of time. Using certain methods of sorting helps balance the economy and begin the formulation of a plan. The Mises guy didn't read most of the book, and neither have you. Read the entire book, if you had you wouldn't be asking these stupid questions and making these stupid arguments. I don't have anything against you personally, but saying that you've read something you clearly haven't makes me frustrated.

If you're a millionaire you can hire people to make money for you and have your net worth grow while you sleep.

With regards to socialism saving lives, there is plenty of proof. Cuba is known for exporting doctors and developing new vaccines for example.

Capitalism meanwhile can't feed Africa or stop preventable disease because it's not profitable.

And now to the baker. If a baker is ten times a productive, that means that a bakery could just hire 10 normal bakers to put out the same profit. If the talented baker wants 10 times more pay than a regular baker, the bakery gains nothing. The baker must accept regular pay, and then his rate of exploitation would actually be higher than average. He gains nothing, and looses more.

Millionaires, more often than not, are in direct control of their business. They are active participants and organize everything below them.

Cuba is a poor example when the Castro regime has had plenty executed over the years. Capitalism is borderline nonexistent in Africa's poorest nations, and foreign aid worsens the situation.

You're ignoring my point; other bakeries would find more value in a skilled baker and thus try to entice him into leaving a bakery that treats him poorly.

1) Millionaires have people that do the work for them. Even if they do participate in the organization of their operations (they don't most of the time), that doesn't mean they are entitled to the value others create. Millionaires have an entire business under them. They aren't personally telling everyone what to do.

2) not an argument. This is about if socialism saves lives or not. Fidel Castro had to deal with more than 600 assasination attempts, if he was less authoritarian he'd have died much quicker. In addition, Cuba's electoral system is more democratic than America's. Cuba isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

3) Does Africa have private industry?
Does it have a market?
Does it liberalize and privatize for the IMF?
Yes?
Then it's Capitalist. Africa is just exploited. The economic freedom map is bullshit, the IMF's actions prove that.

[Taihei Tengoku]

In addition, Cuba's electoral system is more democratic than America's. Cuba isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

lombo

[Orostan]

In addition, Cuba's electoral system is more democratic than America's. Cuba isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

lombo

The Communist party doesn't actually nominate anybody for anything. Local trade unions and groups do that.

[Irona]

We manage with humans calculating prices, and that takes a lot longer than a nano-second.

Humans calculate prices via supply and demand and the logistics of both. People cross the border from Illinois to Missouri in the St. Louis metro area to save on everything for gas to groceries (lower taxes in Missouri). Gas is generally cheaper in Missouri (we're next to the trunk of the refinery and pipeline network from the Gulf of Mexico to the Midwest up the Mississippi River) than other parts of the country where the gasoline supply has to be trucked in over roads, at additional costs.

Socialism doesn't understand logistics. Logistics are real. Ignoring reality causes carbuncles lol

I would assume the computer would also try to use supply and demand when making calculations. Unless you go full Marxist and argue prices don’t come from supply and demand.

[Orostan]

Humans calculate prices via supply and demand and the logistics of both. People cross the border from Illinois to Missouri in the St. Louis metro area to save on everything for gas to groceries (lower taxes in Missouri). Gas is generally cheaper in Missouri (we're next to the trunk of the refinery and pipeline network from the Gulf of Mexico to the Midwest up the Mississippi River) than other parts of the country where the gasoline supply has to be trucked in over roads, at additional costs.

Socialism doesn't understand logistics. Logistics are real. Ignoring reality causes carbuncles lol

I would assume the computer would also try to use supply and demand when making calculations. Unless you go full Marxist and argue prices don’t come from supply and demand.

The first thing that Marx writes in the commodity bits of Wage Labor and Capital is about supply and demand. That's part of where price comes from.

Not value, though. And in TANS Cockshott does give a method for pricing goods above or below their labor value to account for supply and demand and to arrange the allocation of resources. Goods that a socialist country has a surplus with would be exported.

[Northern Davincia]

1) Millionaires have people that do the work for them. Even if they do participate in the organization of their operations (they don't most of the time), that doesn't mean they are entitled to the value others create. Millionaires have an entire business under them. They aren't personally telling everyone what to do.

2) not an argument. This is about if socialism saves lives or not. Fidel Castro had to deal with more than 600 assasination attempts, if he was less authoritarian he'd have died much quicker. In addition, Cuba's electoral system is more democratic than America's. Cuba isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

3) Does Africa have private industry?
Does it have a market?
Does it liberalize and privatize for the IMF?
Yes?
Then it's Capitalist. Africa is just exploited. The economic freedom map is bullshit, the IMF's actions prove that.

1. Go ahead and prove that they don't participate in organization most of the time. Entitlement comes from contracts.
2. Cuba ranks horrendously in almost every freedom index.
3. What is the common trend between Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Congo, and other abysmal countries? Governed by socialists, if not Marxists. Go figure.

I would assume the computer would also try to use supply and demand when making calculations. Unless you go full Marxist and argue prices don’t come from supply and demand.

The first thing that Marx writes in the commodity bits of Wage Labor and Capital is about supply and demand. That's part of where price comes from.

Not value, though. And in TANS Cockshott does give a method for pricing goods above or below their labor value to account for supply and demand and to arrange the allocation of resources. Goods that a socialist country has a surplus with would be exported.

It's a shame that value is subjective.

[Nulla Bellum]

My citation is the fucking book. Using vectors to calculate labor values instead of a table saves a lot of time. Using certain methods of sorting helps balance the economy and begin the formulation of a plan. The Mises guy didn't read most of the book, and neither have you. Read the entire book, if you had you wouldn't be asking these stupid questions and making these stupid arguments. I don't have anything against you personally, but saying that you've read something you clearly haven't makes me frustrated.

I knew you would waste pages trying to call me a liar. I have read that stupid book, and presented objections to it you are thus far unable or unwilling to address.

Your frustration is self-inflicted, as you have tasked yourself with attempting to present socialism in a way that isn't laughably and preposterously retarded on its face. A task even the arch-hack laughingstock Karl Marx himself never managed to accomplish.

"New" socialists attempt to address the economic calculation flaw that firmly emplaces Marxism in the category of pseudoscientific, farcical idiocy.

On the one hand, it's encouraging that "new" socialists understand and acknowledge that the existence of the economic calculation problem makes Marxism retarded. On the other hand, the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem presented in TANS exacerbates the retardedness of Marxism, rather than solving it.

Good good, they doubled down on retarded. And?

[VoVoDoCo]

A drop from 19,000 to 12,000?
7,000?
That's less than the number of people employed from outsourcing I gave.

Scratch that, I read it wrong.
19,000,000 to 12,000,000
7 million.
That's a loss of 205,882 a year from the whole US. The stat I gave? Was just jobs created in Tennessee.

1.So by that, wages should be constantly increasing in the US. But they're not. That must mean that workers are in competition with other workers.

And what kind of jobs are being created? A lot of job growth is in temporary fields or the "gig" economy if I recall correctly.

2. But it's not a part of those parties ideologies. It IS a part of yours.
Also tu quoque

2. You misunderstand. All I'm saying is that political parties like the Republicans and Democrats do dronestrikes and war in the same way. Their policies kill people. Singling out socialism is dishonest. Besides, in the long run socialism would save lives.

People who belong to political parties kill people too. Personally I'd like it if socialism could be established without having to kill anyone, but I don't know if that's possible.

1. What? Ceteris paribus is a term in economics. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Also what kind of jobs are being created? Hmmm good question. Let's look at the first source I posted.
Automotive
Other manufacturing
Chemicals/plastics
Transportation
Business services
Other
Energy technology
Health care/devices
Food/agri
Aerospace/defense
These are the top job markets of insourcing. None of these are temporary "gig" jobs. You said you believed you read insourcing led to gig economies, "if you recall." What source are you harkening back to?

2. You misunderstand... what tu quoque is. And don't call me dishonest.

Knocking on people's doors and murdering them when you can't have their stuff=/=misguided military ventures

[VoVoDoCo]

So, is your argument that a socialist economy cannot organize the distribution of products? That would be the easiest part of economic planning. All that would have to be done is to have several large distribution cooperatives fill demand by transporting stuff from factories and other industries.

I'm sorry, but there is NOTHING easy about creating, gathering, and shipping products.

Here's everything that needs to be considered if you want to create, gather, and ship a PENCIL.

And you think that would be the EASIEST part? You're kidding me. The easiest part is going to be the mobs killing people. What better way to get people to obey you than knowing the mobs can, with good conscience, kill people who oppose the elevation of the workers?

[Orostan]

1) Millionaires have people that do the work for them. Even if they do participate in the organization of their operations (they don't most of the time), that doesn't mean they are entitled to the value others create. Millionaires have an entire business under them. They aren't personally telling everyone what to do.

2) not an argument. This is about if socialism saves lives or not. Fidel Castro had to deal with more than 600 assasination attempts, if he was less authoritarian he'd have died much quicker. In addition, Cuba's electoral system is more democratic than America's. Cuba isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternative.

3) Does Africa have private industry?
Does it have a market?
Does it liberalize and privatize for the IMF?
Yes?
Then it's Capitalist. Africa is just exploited. The economic freedom map is bullshit, the IMF's actions prove that.

1. Go ahead and prove that they don't participate in organization most of the time. Entitlement comes from contracts.
2. Cuba ranks horrendously in almost every freedom index.
3. What is the common trend between Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Congo, and other abysmal countries? Governed by socialists, if not Marxists. Go figure.

The first thing that Marx writes in the commodity bits of Wage Labor and Capital is about supply and demand. That's part of where price comes from.

Not value, though. And in TANS Cockshott does give a method for pricing goods above or below their labor value to account for supply and demand and to arrange the allocation of resources. Goods that a socialist country has a surplus with would be exported.

It's a shame that value is subjective.

1) Do you think Jeff Bezos hangs around his dispatch centers? Do you think Bill Gates decides how to set up his factories? And even if they do, that doesn't entitle them to what others create, even if its in a contract that a worker signed only to feed themselves.
2) Again, freedom can't really be measured in something as simple as an index. And these indexes are often compiled by groups like the Heritage foundation, which are funded by the bourgeois. In addition to that, there's the economic freedom index which is bullshit.
3) Do the workers own the means of production there?
Do they have planned economies?
Do they have markets?
No?
No?
Yes?
That means they're not socialist, even if they say they are.

4) Value isn't subjective, the STV is a pile of shit. I proved that already.

1.So by that, wages should be constantly increasing in the US. But they're not. That must mean that workers are in competition with other workers.

And what kind of jobs are being created? A lot of job growth is in temporary fields or the "gig" economy if I recall correctly.




2. You misunderstand. All I'm saying is that political parties like the Republicans and Democrats do dronestrikes and war in the same way. Their policies kill people. Singling out socialism is dishonest. Besides, in the long run socialism would save lives.

People who belong to political parties kill people too. Personally I'd like it if socialism could be established without having to kill anyone, but I don't know if that's possible.

1. What? Ceteris paribus is a term in economics. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Also what kind of jobs are being created? Hmmm good question. Let's look at the first source I posted.
Automotive
Other manufacturing
Chemicals/plastics
Transportation
Business services
Other
Energy technology
Health care/devices
Food/agri
Aerospace/defense
These are the top job markets of insourcing. None of these are temporary "gig" jobs. You said you believed you read insourcing led to gig economies, "if you recall." What source are you harkening back to?

2. You misunderstand... what tu quoque is. And don't call me dishonest.

Knocking on people's doors and murdering them when you can't have their stuff=/=misguided military ventures

1. Here you go.

Even if insourcing is creating jobs, there's still the fact that most of the jobs being created are shit.

2. I never said you personally were dishonest. I said that the act of singling out socialism for that is dishonest. I didn't mean to insult you, sorry if it came across that way.

Socialists don't want to murder anyone outright. The kind of thing you are describing would only happen in a revolution or civil war, which we both agree should be avoided if possible.

I knew you would waste pages trying to call me a liar. I have read that stupid book, and presented objections to it you are thus far unable or unwilling to address.

Your frustration is self-inflicted, as you have tasked yourself with attempting to present socialism in a way that isn't laughably and preposterously retarded on its face. A task even the arch-hack laughingstock Karl Marx himself never managed to accomplish.

"New" socialists attempt to address the economic calculation flaw that firmly emplaces Marxism in the category of pseudoscientific, farcical idiocy.

On the one hand, it's encouraging that "new" socialists understand and acknowledge that the existence of the economic calculation problem makes Marxism retarded. On the other hand, the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem presented in TANS exacerbates the retardedness of Marxism, rather than solving it.

Good good, they doubled down on retarded. And?

You obviously haven't read the book. You can't fucking say that you've read something when you haven't. The book is a fucking refutation of the economic calculation problem, just read it. The Economic calculation is bullshit, and if you actually read the bits about value and pricing you'd be able to make a more coherent argument against me, at least.

"On the other hand, the proposed solution to the economic calculation problem presented in TANS exacerbates the retardedness of Marxism, rather than solving it."

Stop being so damn smug and condescending. The fact that you're saying this at all proves you haven't read anything. The authors of TANS describe very clearly how pricing would be done, how labor values can be computed, and how the economy could be managed in general. I don't believe you've read the whole thing, so please do. You haven't actually criticized any of the points TANS makes other than the 16000 year thing, which Cockshott mentioned and than refuted himself.

[VoVoDoCo]

1. What? Ceteris paribus is a term in economics. Learn it. Live it. Love it.
Also what kind of jobs are being created? Hmmm good question. Let's look at the first source I posted.
Automotive
Other manufacturing
Chemicals/plastics
Transportation
Business services
Other
Energy technology
Health care/devices
Food/agri
Aerospace/defense
These are the top job markets of insourcing. None of these are temporary "gig" jobs. You said you believed you read insourcing led to gig economies, "if you recall." What source are you harkening back to?

2. You misunderstand... what tu quoque is. And don't call me dishonest.

Knocking on people's doors and murdering them when you can't have their stuff=/=misguided military ventures

1. Here you go.

Even if insourcing is creating jobs, there's still the fact that most of the jobs being created are shit.

2. I never said you personally were dishonest. I said that the act of singling out socialism for that is dishonest. I didn't mean to insult you, sorry if it came across that way.

Socialists don't want to murder anyone outright. The kind of thing you are describing would only happen in a revolution or civil war, which we both agree should be avoided if possible.

1.

"It's a big bucket that includes independent contractors, freelancers, temp agencies, on-call employees, and people who work for contract companies, like janitors."
It attributes temporary jobs to those things. Not automotive, chemicals, business services, and the like, which are created through insourcing.

Also, your own source casts doubt on whether this many temporary workers is a bad thing because "The Katz and Krueger evidence is mixed on whether these workers would prefer full-time regular employment," said Harvard economics professor Gabriel Chodorow-Reich. "Some would, others are happy with their alternative arrangement."

"over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers."

Again, NOT the jobs most commonly created through insourcing. Also, it labels the gig economy as .5% of the GDP. The value derived from the insourcing? It isn't just bigger than the gig economy, it's growing fasterthan native grown companies.

I'm repeating myself. It has nothing to do with insourcing.

Those jobs are shit? WHAT KIND OF A FUCKING ARGUMENT IS THAT!? People shouldn't be manufacturing? Or getting involved in healthcare? Or transportation? Or energy? What kind of a socialist are you?
If you answered that last question with, "the kind of Socialists that moves the goalposts in the most ridiculous way Vovodoco has ever seen", then you'd be correct.
2. Gandhi did it.

[Orostan]

1. Here you go.

Even if insourcing is creating jobs, there's still the fact that most of the jobs being created are shit.

2. I never said you personally were dishonest. I said that the act of singling out socialism for that is dishonest. I didn't mean to insult you, sorry if it came across that way.

Socialists don't want to murder anyone outright. The kind of thing you are describing would only happen in a revolution or civil war, which we both agree should be avoided if possible.

1.

"It's a big bucket that includes independent contractors, freelancers, temp agencies, on-call employees, and people who work for contract companies, like janitors."
It attributes temporary jobs to those things. Not automotive, chemicals, business services, and the like, which are created through insourcing.

Also, your own source casts doubt on whether this many temporary workers is a bad thing because "The Katz and Krueger evidence is mixed on whether these workers would prefer full-time regular employment," said Harvard economics professor Gabriel Chodorow-Reich. "Some would, others are happy with their alternative arrangement."

"over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers."

Again, NOT the jobs most commonly created through insourcing. Also, it labels the gig economy as .5% of the GDP. The value derived from the insourcing? It isn't just bigger than the gig economy, it's growing fasterthan native grown companies.

I'm repeating myself. It has nothing to do with insourcing.

Those jobs are shit? WHAT KIND OF A FUCKING ARGUMENT IS THAT!? People shouldn't be manufacturing? Or getting involved in healthcare? Or transportation? Or energy? What kind of a socialist are you?
If you answered that last question with, "the kind of Socialists that moves the goalposts in the most ridiculous way Vovodoco has ever seen", then you'd be correct.
2. Gandhi did it.

1. A. That doesn't refute the claim, and the poll doesn't take into account if people prefer alternative arrangements only because that way they don't starve.
B & C. Again, does not refute the claim.

I am saying that a temporary job that you can be fired from at any time for any reason is a bit shit.

2. The British were also aware of groups that intended to separate from their empire violently. If they didn't let India go when they did, they'd have had to deal with a violent insurgency.

[VoVoDoCo]

1.

"It's a big bucket that includes independent contractors, freelancers, temp agencies, on-call employees, and people who work for contract companies, like janitors."
It attributes temporary jobs to those things. Not automotive, chemicals, business services, and the like, which are created through insourcing.

Also, your own source casts doubt on whether this many temporary workers is a bad thing because "The Katz and Krueger evidence is mixed on whether these workers would prefer full-time regular employment," said Harvard economics professor Gabriel Chodorow-Reich. "Some would, others are happy with their alternative arrangement."

"over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers."

Again, NOT the jobs most commonly created through insourcing. Also, it labels the gig economy as .5% of the GDP. The value derived from the insourcing? It isn't just bigger than the gig economy, it's growing fasterthan native grown companies.

I'm repeating myself. It has nothing to do with insourcing.

Those jobs are shit? WHAT KIND OF A FUCKING ARGUMENT IS THAT!? People shouldn't be manufacturing? Or getting involved in healthcare? Or transportation? Or energy? What kind of a socialist are you?
If you answered that last question with, "the kind of Socialists that moves the goalposts in the most ridiculous way Vovodoco has ever seen", then you'd be correct.
2. Gandhi did it.

1. A. That doesn't refute the claim, and the poll doesn't take into account if people prefer alternative arrangements only because that way they don't starve.
B & C. Again, does not refute the claim.

I am saying that a temporary job that you can be fired from at any time for any reason is a bit shit.

2. The British were also aware of groups that intended to separate from their empire violently. If they didn't let India go when they did, they'd have had to deal with a violent insurgency.

1.Of course my arguments didn't refute your claim.

Your claim was insourcing jobs are unstable and temporary.
You provided sources to support it.
Your sources were irrelevant. So my attacks attacked your sources. Not your claims. That's not my fault, that's yours. With that in mind, let's talk about, "the poll doesn't take into account if people prefer alternative arrangements only because that way they don't starve." Maybe then, you should provide that poll, instead of forcing me to attack a claim you haven't validated with evidence. In case you've forgotten, we're debating insourcing.

2. Provide evidence of THAT please. Gandi's rebellion was by and large (with the exception of a few incidents beyond his control that resulted in violence that only STRENGTHENED Britain's resolve) nonviolent. They refused to work, had sit ins, yada yada.

[VoVoDoCo]

I am saying that a temporary job that you can be fired from at any time for any reason is a bit shit.

Also, WHAT THE FUCK. We've been through this, those jobs are secure.

Unless of course, you didn't fucking read my arguments. There's always THAT option.

[VoVoDoCo]

And for the record, I love Gandhi.

I disagree with him on some shit, but he was an amazing individual.

[The Liberated Territories]

And for the record, I love Gandhi.

I disagree with him on some shit, but he was an amazing individual.

pls no not "10 thousand nukes" gandhi

[Northern Davincia]

And for the record, I love Gandhi.

I disagree with him on some shit, but he was an amazing individual.

pls no not "10 thousand nukes" gandhi

Many tears were shed as my cities were washed away in nuclear fire.

[VoVoDoCo]

And for the record, I love Gandhi.

I disagree with him on some shit, but he was an amazing individual.

pls no not "10 thousand nukes" gandhi

Yaaaaaaasssss
Gandhi
Yaaaaaaaassss

[Orostan]

1. A. That doesn't refute the claim, and the poll doesn't take into account if people prefer alternative arrangements only because that way they don't starve.
B & C. Again, does not refute the claim.

I am saying that a temporary job that you can be fired from at any time for any reason is a bit shit.

2. The British were also aware of groups that intended to separate from their empire violently. If they didn't let India go when they did, they'd have had to deal with a violent insurgency.

1.Of course my arguments didn't refute your claim.

Your claim was insourcing jobs are unstable and temporary.
You provided sources to support it.
Your sources were irrelevant. So my attacks attacked your sources. Not your claims. That's not my fault, that's yours. With that in mind, let's talk about, "the poll doesn't take into account if people prefer alternative arrangements only because that way they don't starve." Maybe then, you should provide that poll, instead of forcing me to attack a claim you haven't validated with evidence. In case you've forgotten, we're debating insourcing.

2. Provide evidence of THAT please. Gandi's rebellion was by and large (with the exception of a few incidents beyond his control that resulted in violence that only STRENGTHENED Britain's resolve) nonviolent. They refused to work, had sit ins, yada yada.

1. You didn't refute them though. I never claimed that insourcing was unstable and temporary. I claimed that the majority of new jobs were that, not insourced jobs.

2. There werethese guys and these guys along with some others. The point I'm making is that if the British didn't let India go peacefully, a violent separation would've been inevitable.

[VoVoDoCo]

I never claimed that insourcing was unstable and temporary.

• I talked about job growth from insourcing
• You said a lot of job growth was temporary
  That is where it all got fucked up. I was assuming you were referring to insourcing, since that's what we were fucking debating. And because I've said multiple times I'm done debating general economics. I was debating insourcing, you started talking about employment figures of occupations that weren't included in the discussion we were having. Stay. On. Topic.

2. There werethese guys and these guys along with some others. The point I'm making is that if the British didn't let India go peacefully, a violent separation would've been inevitable.

I understand the point you're "making." But in the sources you provided, where does it say that violence led to a free India?

The organisation moved away from its philosophy of violence in the 1920s, when a number of its members identified closely with the Congress and Gandhian non-violent movement

However, the Anushilan Samiti gradually disseminated into the Gandhian movement.

So actually, violence DIDN'T work, they tried non-violence, and it did work.

As for your second source, it provided nothing. Even in the section titled: "Legacy and assessments of the effects of the revolt," it doesn't even mention the possibility of a free India.

[Orostan]

I never claimed that insourcing was unstable and temporary.

• I talked about job growth from insourcing
• You said a lot of job growth was temporary
  That is where it all got fucked up. I was assuming you were referring to insourcing, since that's what we were fucking debating. And because I've said multiple times I'm done debating general economics. I was debating insourcing, you started talking about employment figures of occupations that weren't included in the discussion we were having. Stay. On. Topic.

2. There werethese guys and these guys along with some others. The point I'm making is that if the British didn't let India go peacefully, a violent separation would've been inevitable.

I understand the point you're "making." But in the sources you provided, where does it say that violence led to a free India?

The organisation moved away from its philosophy of violence in the 1920s, when a number of its members identified closely with the Congress and Gandhian non-violent movement

However, the Anushilan Samiti gradually disseminated into the Gandhian movement.

So actually, violence DIDN'T work, they tried non-violence, and it did work.

As for your second source, it provided nothing. Even in the section titled: "Legacy and assessments of the effects of the revolt," it doesn't even mention the possibility of a free India.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that these movements were indicative of rising violent currents in India. Ghandi only showed the British that a violent revolution was inevitable if they didn't accept his peaceful protests.

[VoVoDoCo]

• I talked about job growth from insourcing
• You said a lot of job growth was temporary
  That is where it all got fucked up. I was assuming you were referring to insourcing, since that's what we were fucking debating. And because I've said multiple times I'm done debating general economics. I was debating insourcing, you started talking about employment figures of occupations that weren't included in the discussion we were having. Stay. On. Topic.

I understand the point you're "making." But in the sources you provided, where does it say that violence led to a free India?

The organisation moved away from its philosophy of violence in the 1920s, when a number of its members identified closely with the Congress and Gandhian non-violent movement

However, the Anushilan Samiti gradually disseminated into the Gandhian movement.

So actually, violence DIDN'T work, they tried non-violence, and it did work.

As for your second source, it provided nothing. Even in the section titled: "Legacy and assessments of the effects of the revolt," it doesn't even mention the possibility of a free India.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that these movements were indicative of rising violent currents in India. Ghandi only showed the British that a violent revolution was inevitable if they didn't accept his peaceful protests.

Fucking prove it.

[VoVoDoCo]

Prove India became free because the British government was fearful of violent insurrection.

That's all I want.

Something that huge, there should be LOADS of evidence, sources, quotes, etc

[VoVoDoCo]

BONUS POINTS
if it was even close to the main reason.