What's with the communist thing? Do we have a new Fazz?
A new Fazz? Could you enlighten me as to the meaning of that?
No. I'm a tan white guy who is an atheist, and likes 70s rock.
Huh, you're a dude? That's news to me. Anyhow, are you a Communist?
That's silly, please try harder and stop being communist.
Why? Please explain.
Oh, thank God, I was hoping you were going to ask. Sorry I took so long to respond, I just got Beholder, which is fittingly set in a Stalin-esque dictatorship, but that's besides the point.
Communism is pretty soundly based on Marx's theory of value, where the value of a good is determined by the labour put into it. This is quite easily provable false, as there's many examples where that's clearly not the case. Diamonds, for instance, are far more valuable than the amount of labour put in to make them, because people are manipulated into finding value in them through controlled supply. Mud pies, however, take a fair bit of labour to make, yet are inherently valueless. Value is quite clearly determined by societal value and/or public perception, so in that alone, Communism seems to fall apart. Quite clearly, there's almost no relation to the value of labour and the price of the good. Demand determines price, not labour, and without that, communism falls apart.
In addition to this, it's clear to the "redistribution" of property is an inherently immoral idea, and to take it through a class uprising a collapse of the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is inherent to any functioning society as first discussed by Aristotle and elaborated on by Lord Fuller, as without it, anarchy at best ensues, and at worst, dictatorship. Through using violence to create this system, ultimately you're advocating cruelty and anarchy to do so, in disposing of the law in an uprising against the legal system with plans to dispose it.
Then, of course, we must ask who is to be the redistributers? The common Communist (Commonunist?) will say the Proletariat, but a system of redistribution will need to be devised to do this, and that system will have a hierarchy, as does any system. This quite quickly would lead to this system turning corrupt, as we've seen with the corrupt heads of the USSR, or China, or any communist state, as akin to Montesquie's theory of the prevention of corruption through the separation of powers. With this, communism is doomed to fail, as it simply never occurs due to this inherent impossibility to achieve it.
I've a few more complaints, but I feel these should be a fairly reasonable destruction of the Communist ideology.
OR you can have the concept of Communism, and not some dumb Russian guy's idea of it. The Soviet Union was a load of shit, and really, trying to get the world's largest population to go Communistic is plain stupid. Communism would be ideally a utopia, and could be possible in the far future, because capitalism is a system that will dig itself into a hole and reset through a revolution, and then continue to dig itself into a hole (e.g. Any country that's not socialist, for example the USA in its current state).
I don't know where in any of that my complaints would only be about the Soviet Union. I didn't attack Soviet Russia, I attacked the very theories Communism is based on, such as the lack of price indicators in a Communist society, how the theory of labour that it's built on isn't true, how the process of implementing it leads to corruption or chaos, and how the system of redistribution is incredible prone to corruption. None of that is me attacking Soviet Russia, it's me attacking Communist theory, and you've done nothing to address any of those complaints, even though it makes it clear Communism is a useless ideology.
So yeah, you didn't really actually address any of my complaints. I feel you thought I was going to start complaining about Stalin or Mao, and you didn't even bother to read any of my complaints, because none of them are about previous Communist regimes, but about the ideology.
EDIT: Oh, small point, I mentioned Beholder and it's Stalinesque setting, but I said that was besides the point. Anyhow, good game, really hard.
Ugh look bro, speaking as a communist myself, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I really do encourage you to read more Marxist texts before deciding to label yourself so eagerly as a communist. Because the Soviet Union was not 'a load of shit', communism is not utopian / communist society is not a utopia (Marxism is not utopian, Marxism is scientific), and the theoretical advances in Marxism made by people like Lenin and Stalin should not be summarized as 'some dumb Russian guy's idea of it'.
I would encourage you to read The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism, a short essay written by Lenin, in order to understand the foundations of Marxism.
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific by Engels (if you don't want to read some 'dumb Russian guy') is also another good read because it actually outlines how and why communism is not a utopian idea.
If theory is too hard for you to grasp right now (which is ok) just keep understanding the basics and why socialism is necessary to end the vast contradictions present in capitalist society (homelessness, exploitation, oppression, joblessness, poverty, racism, sexism, famine etc).
Sorry for all the links but a large part of being a communist is reading.
Also Steve is really not worth the time to be honest.
Not worth the time? I gave him a bunch of criticisms of Communism, and he dismissed them, clearly without reading them, by saying they don't apply to Communism because Communism isn't Stalin, which is nothing what I said. I literally attacked ideology alone, and it's like he didn't get around to reading them, and just guessed I was mad about the millions dead.
Meanwhile, you and I have argued in the past, and it ends without fail in you giving me a bunch of propaganda links, me reading them, dissecting them, counter-arguing and then you getting upset and, when I'm lucky, racist.
Anyhow, tell me, you're still a Communist, are you still a walking contradiction, or are you an apostate yet?
> I literally attacked ideology alone, and it's like he didn't get around to reading them, and just guessed I was mad about the millions dead.
Besides the fact your attacks are low quality bait, it's ok because he doesn't have a thorough understanding of marx yet so I wouldn't expect him to be able to refute them.
>Anyhow, tell me, you're still a Communist, are you still a walking contradiction, or are you an apostate yet?
for a short period of time I decided to embrace ruthless criticism and rationality and considered myself 'irreligious', but for various reasons I then decided I didn't want to live my life completely without some form of spirituality (opium is addicting after all), so, ultimately I still consider myself muslim.
How, in any way, are my attacks low quality bait? Please, explain. I dismantled the idea of Communism fairly soundly, without resorting to insults or anything. So, what's your criticisms of what I said that makes it "low quality bait"?
So yes, you've decided to remain with contradicting beliefs, both of which are fairly negative ideologies. I'd recommend abandoning both, if I was you, but your Communist tendencies should go first. If I were you, I'd adopt a more Keynesian Atheistic ideology.
Steve. Be reasonable, man. You're not taking into account how well Communism has worked out for many countries, including but not limited to: The Soviet Union, The People's Republic of China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Tibet and certainly a few others that I'm forgetting...
Oh wait. Communism and it's soulless followers actually committed genocides, mass murders, systematic rapes and tortures, burnings of churches filled with people, mutilations, drownings, beheadings and various other generally unacceptable behaviors on very, VERY large scales in all of those places.
It's hard to nail down an exact number, but it is generally accepted that Communism is responsible for over 100 million deaths - and that's a conservative figure. It's also widely accepted that Communism is the single most destructive ideology in all of history.
But hey, Communism is a great idea in theory though, right?
That seems far more bait-esque than my response. It's quite easily dismissible, easily. None of those countries actually ever succeeded in practicing Communism. While they could be used as examples of how Communism fails to get into affect as it's pretty much impossible, the critiques I made were exclusive to the theory that Communists love so much.
Funnily enough, though, Fazz is actually so naive that he supports people like Stalin and Mao, rather than take the far more reasonable response of criticizing them, like most Communist authors of the day did, in a manner that was far more accurate than capitalist countries like America or England who reported that Stalin's Show Trials were legal, so I suppose it would work against him, but I'd prefer to show that Communism is awful in theory, let alone in practice.
Well, I am pretty much a master baiter.
> I dismantled the idea of Communism fairly soundly, without resorting to insults or anything.
No your critcisms were actually pretty retarded, and we've been over this before.
Keynesianism is very similar to fascism because both are a response to the deepening contradictions and problems of capitalism, they just present different solutions to them. Socialism is the only thing which can alleviate the problems of capitalism, as we've been over before.
Something interesting I'd like to mention, in all my time engaging in discourse with actual communists, both IRL and online and whatnot, I've never actually met any who were like militantly atheist and anti-theist or otherwise had a problem with people who were religious.
You haven't refuted them, so that's not a particularly helpful response. You haven't been over it, you just end up insulting me and then saying you don't know Keynes, so you don't care to learn. You didn't understand the price mechanism last I recall, the rule of law argument is a new one, as is the idea of the corruption of the redistributers due to Montesquie's thoughts on the nature of power.
What a strange response, comparing it to Fascism. It's not particularly necessary, but more of an attempt for you to dismiss Keynesianism. Obviously, Keynes proposed ways to deal with problems in Capitalism. That's not a bad thing, as those solutions work. Unless you'd care to explain why that's not the case, which you've never tried to do, as last we discussed, you didn't know Keynes' work and ignored it.
I don't care, particularly, I find Communists tend to be overreactionary people who don't understand the ideology. My only problem with religious people is that I think religion is bad, but I still care for many religious people.
Actually, new thing, why the hell do you have a song by a noted anti-Communist who fought against Communist infiltration of Labour Unions and hated the USSR and what Stalin did on your profile? You really don't understand your ideology, dude.
I blame the plantations
Listen, Fazz, my parents lived in the Soviet Union. I assure you, they didn't think it was great. It was definitely a load of shit. I don't need to read about it because I have a decent idea of what it is, and there's no point in reading about it.
Which part, out of curiousity?
I am also interested in what area. If you're parents are Ukrainian, that would make a lot of sense, considering many kulaks (rich Ukrainians who owned farmland in the 20th century in Russia) held reactionary viewpoints and resisted Soviet collectivilization by burning their crops and killing their cattle, which was one of the many factors leading to the Holodomor famine.
Socialism targeted and alienated a class of Russian people who were exploiting and oppressing others. For the common peasantry however, going from a shitty agrarian semi-feudal society with illiteracy, homelessness, and poverty rampant, to a modernized, industrial, nuclear super power within the course of 4-6 decades, is definitely not a 'load of shit'. While your family may have had a bad experience in the USSR, presumably because they were of the ruling elites before the workers came into power, for hundreds of millions of other people socialism lifted them from a great inarticulacy and misery.
Because Mizal wants to lock in that Fazz is basically saying it’s the Ukrainians' fault that they got horse fucked. If they hadn’t resisted, it would have been a tasteful raping instead.
Not really surprised, since during that whole Je Suis Charlie thing, Fazz once said it was the cartoonists’ fault that they got killed, rather than y’know the actual terrorists that got triggered over Allah pics.
Though seeing as he was pure strain Muslim at that time, it was at least consistent. (As opposed to Boringfirelion who was Christian and saying the same dumb ass thing)
Did he actually? That's hilarious, @Fazztheman If you could just confirm that you sided with the terrorists in the Jes Suis Charlie thing, that'd be pretty cool.
I don't remember defending terrorists explicitly, but the je suit charlie thing happened like 3 or 4 years ago. my opinions are obviously rather different and more rational 'now' (I dont believe people should be murdered over what they draw ok).
Why should someone be murdered?
Also, your profile pic grosses me out.
Instead you believe they should be murdered based on how much money they have. What an improvement!
Killing the poor and unproductive would benefit society...
What? Poor isn't unproductive. Killing the current poor would just mean we'd have a huge hole in our system as we'd have no cheap laborers, and that's hugely damage our economy. I feel you don't understand economics.
You misunderstood. I mean the poor who are also unproductive. That or put them in work camps, or hell, just use them as test subjects.
It's not exclusively the poor who are unproductive. And that idea sounds terrible. Slavery's a bad thing, best avoid it. How do you deem someone too unproductive to deserve to be tested on?
I specify poor people because they are the ones who typically take advantage of the welfare system. I'm aware that some middle class people do this too, but the lower class does this significantly more often. It's not fair the people can mooch off of the welfare system and take taxpayer dollars when they've done little to nothing to contribute to society. Same goes for prisoners. If they're going to be in there, may as well put them to work. They could even learn some valuable skills that will help them get a good job and stay away from crime when they get out.
Well, inmates (namely those already on death row), homeless drug addicts, etc. I'd say let anyone volunteer to join and their living expenses can be covered by the government since they are basically property at that point.
Wealthy people cheat off society far more than the poor, as they use loopholes to cheat society out of the tax it's owned. That's what's not fair. So yeah, fuck it, it's a ridiculous stereotype to say it's poor people cheating the system.
Your logic basically tramples on human rights, creating a new slave state that will quickly be taken advantage of, while not taken into account that for many drug addicts, criminals and poor people, they've been pushed into that life through parenting and how they grow up and end up down the same way. The idea of using slave labor is not only despicable, but also simply uneconomical, as such actions would no doubt lead to huge sanctions on trade from other countries that don't want to deal with slavers, and the fact that slavery itself is hardly an economical decision for a 1st world country.
Ha! The US is clearly superior to your country, because here the rich use the very government to cheat society! It's amazing, because the people are so dumb that they actually continue to elect officials that ruin the society.
Your people aren't dumb. Well, they are, but that's not why there's so much corruption in your system. Your one vote per person voting system is fucked, so it forces them to constantly pick the lesser of two evils.
Yeah, well they're the ones that agreed with the system in the first place. :/
No one currently living has anything to do with the current voting system. There just hasn't been a push for voting reform, because the current voting system and its resulting stagnancy suits corrupt politicians.
OK, as if that's much better.
It means you can't blame your people, for starters.
Are you suggesting that one man one vote is a bad idea?
One man, one single, non-transferable vote is a bad idea. A more "past the post" like system is far better, so it doesn't force people to pick the lesser of two evils.
Well how exactly would you go about transferring your vote? To my knowledge, votes are not counted online (that would open us up to an actually case of someone hacking the election). It's up to the voter to make an educated decision as to who they are voting for. The problem you seem to have lies more so in the people running. It's just difficult for third party candidates to make in on the ballot much less get enough publicity to win. The two-party system see to it that third party candidates are curb-stomped quickly enough that they rarely even have a chance. I'm not even sure how Bernie Sanders was able to win as an independent in Vermont, although he was very active in other political scenes beforehand. I guess if you are planning to run and not be a member of the two parties, you'll have to have some serious name recognition (relative to where you're running) if you hope to stand a chance.
I just said, with a "past the post" system.
I couldn't find anything about "past the post" but I did find "first-past-the-post" voting system which is what we already have in the United States. Are you referring to a system under a different name?
Shit, sorry, not past-the-post. Instant Run-Off Voting.
That's actually not a bad idea. I'm curious as to why we don't do it that way.
Corruption that benefits from an inferior way of voting in your political system.
But I do see a problem with that system as well.
Let's say we have three people running for office: Clinton, Trump, and Putin. My preference goes Trump, Putin, then Clinton. Clinton wins the most votes, but not enough for the majority. Putin won the least, and was therefore eliminates. Now, you would think that the votes of both conservatives would be enough to get Trump over (let's just say Putin is a conservative for the sake of this), but realistically, some of those are going to Clinton. In this case, it's enough to get her over and she wins the election.
As it turns out, more Trump voters had Putin as their second choice than Putin voters had Trump as their second choice. So voting for Trump as my #1 actually hurt him more than it helped him. So now you have to consider multiple other factors in voting for a candidate rather than who you agree with most.
If it was a political system, then the majority of votes from Putin would've went to Trump, which now that there's only two candidates. Of course, flaws in the system can emerge, but overall the disadvantages are far fewer. You could look into additional voting systems, of course, in an attempt to minimize that, but IRV is pretty much objectively better than the current US system, so it stands as an improvement.
But they also pay most of the taxes, create jobs, and stimulate the economy. If anything, those loopholes should just be fixed which is easier said then done. I think that has more to do with the political elite than what I'm referring to (unless you're including them when you talk about the wealthy). I don't think them getting out of paying some of their taxes is worse than the burden of the lower class taking advantage of welfare and other government programs.
In the case of inmates you wouldn't have to call it slavery. They're called 'Correctional Facilities' for a reason. We could just correct criminal behavior by teaching them skills that they could use in the outside world that won't lead to more crime, thus reducing the revolving door of inmates coming in and out of prison and jail.
No, that's mostly untrue. There's vast amounts of trust fund babies and the like who don't do anything to contribute to the economy. They'd make far better slave labor than a lot of poor people. Plus, given the vast amount of wealth controlled by such a small fraction of people, it's a far worse problem than a few trust fund babies.
Prisoners are already made to work, so that's not a new suggestion.
How so? The largest employers aren't poor people, nor are the largest investors. As to taxes, they clearly pay the most. If you have a group of people making respectively 1000, 10000, 100000, 1000000, and 10000000, and you were to tax them each at 10% flat, the person making 10 million would still be paying more in taxes than the rest combined. This isn't even considering that our tax system would tax the wealthier a higher percentage as they make more (even though Trump made tax cuts recently) and the lower class less (some actually don't have to pay anything).
As far as your trust fund babies argument goes, there are some that turn around and do great things for our economy, but I agree with your overall point except that they'd make better slave labor. There are more poor people than there are rich in this country.
If you're using tax loopholes, you're robbing the government of millions if not billions in tax revenue that they should be receiving, as ultimately without you, the economy would quickly fill in and surge to fit in the gap in the market. That's far more that the government doesn't have than that being spent on a dude taking welfare and medicare and whatever else.
Sure, and most poor people contribute to society. So, should your system take the unproductive trust fund babies and make slaves of them? Or just exclusively pry upon the poor, because their families aren't able to stop the slavers.
You know, you're like Fazz except on the opposite end of the spectrum.
No not necessarily. I believe in punishing the criminals, vampires, and parasites of society who exploit, dominate, oppress, and enslave others as well as the planet, also known as the bourgeoisie. As it turns out how much money you have is nearly always directly proportionate with how much you exploit others, but keep in mind it isn't about money it's about exploitation.
Do also note there is a difference between murder and execution.
Oh yeah, I was always curious about this. How rich do you have to be to be considered bourgeoisie? Is there an income cap or something?
Dude, you are Bourgeoisie. You realize that, right? Like, you've said before, your dad's doing quite well. I mean, this is a whole new level of sociopathic which justified endless attrocities for a broken system, but not only that, it's stupid.
Maybe get a head start and off yourself, for Communism. Death to the Bourgeoisie!
We are against the present state of things not rich people.
Seeing as how I dont own any means of production and i never will, no dude, im not bourgeoisie.
I’m not even sure if I am privileged as I assume privilege is something you are born with and i wasnt born well off. Certainly i am currently well off, however, I’m not sure what the relevance of it is or why everyone keeps bringing it up like it discredits anything I’m saying.
But you just advocated for the killing of rich people, so clearly you're against them.
Damn i will never tag you again, I was just trying to distinguish between my responses without having to make three separate posts lmao. sucks for you that its kind of hard to shorten 'mizal' unlike 'spartacus' to 'coins' or 'stevenumbers' to 'steve'.
But anyway I guess I'll show you what I see as idiotic in your response.
>And naturally the highschool students working six hour shifts at McDonalds and not bothering to apply for anything else, as the oppressed working class
The proletariat are not high school students, they are simply anyone who sells their labor and receives wage. Although I personally don't know the exact statistics I doubt the proletariat is 100% or even majority high school students. Feel free to prove me wrong, but even if you were 100% correct, exploitation and theft shouldn't be considered something that isn't a big deal just because the victims are younger. If you're a younger person you still deserve the right to ownership over what you create.
>after they unite...somehow...to
This 'somehow' is unwarranted and kind of stupid because theoretically and in practice it's not an unknown thing or a new concept.
The idea of the Vanguard Party in Marxism-Leninism, and how it relates to consolidating class consciousness, leading the workers in revolution, and eventually governing the new socialist state (a vast and almost insulting oversimplification, but I digress), is something that has been A) thoroughly figured and thought out more than a hundred years ago and B) has again occurred before successfully.
But that's just Marxism. Anytime there has been a revolution, or a similar mass movement / undertaking, people have had to unite and be organized, usually by some centralized authority figures so that the movement is not completely unorganized. It's not an impossible thing.
>violently overthrow the people with degrees or maybe just basic budgeting and organizational skills and a willingness to show up bathed and sober to work more than twenty hours a week.
Exploiting others is ok so long as you have a degree?
>Or maybe you're just figuring on some sort of elite class doing it for them.
No, moreso the ones among them who are most experienced and have the most solid theoretical backing should lead them and aid them in this massive endeavor of destroying the old world.
As Chairman Mao writes in the 'Little Red Book': "If there is to be revolution, there must be a revolutionary party. Without a revolutionary party, without a party built on the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory and in the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary style, it is impossible to lead the working class and the broad masses of the people in defeating imperialism and its running dogs."
And for the second post, also @coins:
>deserve to suffer and die for some nebulous 'crimes' over it.
Their crimes are far from 'nebulous'..
>But you just advocated for the killing of rich people, so clearly you're against them.
Yeah but not just because they're rich. Because for several different reasons: a) they commit crimes b) they are what stand in the way of achieving socialism and c) as Chairman Mao writes:
"It is up to us to organize the people. As for the reactionaries in China, it is up to us to organize the people to overthrow them. Everything reactionary is the same; if you do not hit it, it will not fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish of itself."
"Just as there is not a single thing in the world without a dual nature (this is the law of the unity of opposites), so imperialism and all reactionaries have a dual nature - they are real tigers and paper tigers at the same time. In past history, before they won state power and for some time afterwards, the slave-owning class, the feudal landlord class and the bourgeoisie were vigorous, revolutionary and progressive--they were real tigers. But with the lapse of time, because their opposites - the slave class, the peasant class and the proletariat - grew in strength step by step, struggled against them more and more fiercely, these ruling classes changed step by step into the reverse, changed into reactionaries, changed into backward people, changed into paper tigers. Moreover, eventually they were overthrown, or will be overthrown, by the people. The reactionary, backward, decaying classes retained this dual nature even in their last life-and-death struggles against the people. On the one hand, they were real tigers; they devoured people, devoured people by the millions and tens of millions. The cause of the people's struggle went through a period of difficulties and hardships, and along the path, there were many twists and turns. To destroy the rule of imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism in China took the Chinese people more than a hundred years and cost them tens of millions of lives before the victory in 1949. Look! Were these not living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers? Nevertheless, in the end they changed into paper tigers, dead tigers, and bean-curd tigers. [...] Hence, imperialism and all reactionaries, looked at in essence, from a long-term point of view, from a strategic point of view, must be seen for what they are - paper tigers. On this, we should build our strategic thinking. On the other hand, they are also living tigers, iron tigers, real tigers that can devour people. On this, we should build our tactical thinking."
I'll give you this much. I can understand where Mao and Lenin and Castro and their ilk were coming from. The Tsarist and Bautista regimes were some of the worst ever in human history. Bautista essentially sold out his country to America by letting them own big companies while he got rich off of the labors of his fellow countrymen. The Tsars brutally suppressed all revolt and and opposition much like the Bolsheviks did, and treated all those below them like subhumans. Mao was betrayed several times over by Chiang Kai-Shek and his Nationalists and barely managed to survive at all.
They were treated like garbage by the ruling class, and so like any reasonable person would, they lashed out. They represented the anger of the workers who had been misaligned and downtrodden by the ruling landowners and companies, the fury of having their homeland overrun by foreign interests the outrage at the fact that nobody was doing anything to stop it.
I really do get why communists did what they did. I probably would have been a communist myself had I been in their situation. That being said, there is no excusing what they did after they took power(with the possible exception of Castro).
Mao's so called "reforms" did nothing but kill peasants. Peasants, whose interests he had sworn to uphold. How can anybody call themselves the leader of a class if their actions decimate members of that group?
Lenin acted like a Tsar himself, suppressing most opposition violently. And Stalin was even worse. How can you speak of racism and oppressed groups without mentioning the dozens of minorities deported or sent to work camps by the Soviets under his reign?
Castro is probably the best out of all of them, considering he managed to keep the body count relatively low and did a lot of good for his country without causing mass famine and general anarchy. I applaud Castro for his implementation of universal healthcare, universal education, black rights, and for attempting to aid other countries in need even while they were struggling themselves. Cuba is way better off under Castro and his relatives than it ever was under Bautista and the US. But, this is under socialism, which can work under certain circumstances, not communism, which Cuba has yet to attempt to convert fully to.
Your mistake is applying 19th and 20th century teachings to a 21st century setting. Wages are better, worker's rights are better, the general condition of the working class has improved as a whole, without the death and destruction brought by attempts at communism. The US is one of the more shittier countries in terms of income disparity, true, but other forms of economics and government have emerged in other better countries. When you compare the living standard that of western countries to that of former communist bloc nations, you can see a huge difference. Social democracies, which combine socialism and capitalism, clearly create the highest quality countries to live in.
But discounting all of that, what annoys everyone here is that you're a plain hypocrite. It is literally impossible to support Islam and communism without contradicted yourself. No matter how you try to frame it, women and religious minorities are not treated equally in an Islamic society. That is the very antithesis of communism, is it not?
I hope you got some sense out of this, if not, at the very least I'm sorry for offering you a helicopter ride. Nobody but the Nazis deserve that.
>Mao's so called "reforms" did nothing but kill peasants. Peasants, whose interests he had sworn to uphold. How can anybody call themselves the leader of a class if their actions decimate members of that group?
That's kind of true, the CPC was responsible for the Great Leap Forward famine. At the same time Mao's policies did much more than accidentally cause a famine. He improved literacy and education, he fought for women's and worker's rights and destroyed the old reactionary traditions which harmed people, he conducted land reform and destroyed the old feudal arrangement of things and gave land to the peasants, he industrialized and modernized China making it a superpower, he encouraged the oppressed of the world to fight back against the imperialist dogs and stood as a brick wall against them, and he's probably responsible for China's overpopulation problems right now.
For specifics I encourage you to read this.
>Lenin acted like a Tsar himself, suppressing most opposition violently. And Stalin was even worse.
Lenin and Stalin acted like any other leader in history: they put their own class interests and philosophy above all else, and dealt with any opposition using the State. That's not a 'socialist' or 'feudal' thing, that's just a government thing. (see my response to enterpride below for more elaboration)
Relevant quote by Chairman Mao: ""Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests."
>How can you speak of racism and oppressed groups without mentioning the dozens of minorities deported or sent to work camps by the Soviets under his reign?
I don't know much about the deportations, but I doubt it was because Stalin and the CPSU were just like 'haha lets deport a bunch of people because we're racist'. Rather I've heard it was due to large scale Nazi collaboration and treason. Of course, I don't feel the need to suck Stalin's dick in everything, and there is plenty I dislike about him and you have proof that the deportations were racist, I won't defend that.
Work camps are kind of a different topic. First as this graph taken from Wikipedia shows the gulags were far from the 'death camps' they are typically portrayed as in bourgeois media (how hypocritical considering slavery is perfectly fine in America at least as punishment for crime). In general I believe punishment should also include some rehabilitation, and that prisoners should somehow be productive to society rather than just using up tax money like they do now, so I'm not 100% against them.
Second, oppression of workers = / = oppression and punishment of criminals.
>I applaud Castro for his implementation of universal healthcare, universal education, black rights, and for attempting to aid other countries in need even while they were struggling themselves.
Yes I agree, but we should not forget that Castro treated LGBT people horribly for some time, and although he eventually decided it was wrong and whatnot, we should rigorously criticize him for this. Nothing you said was wrong necessarily and I agree with it, but i'm just mentioning this because people tend to forget it.
>Your mistake is applying 19th and 20th century teachings to a 21st century setting. Wages are better, worker's rights are better, the general condition of the working class has improved as a whole,
No one denies this, and Marxism recognizes this. Your mistake is thinking that just because wages are better, worker's rights are better, and that the 'general condition of the working class has improved', Marxist critiques of capitalist societies have been rendered completely useless.
>without the death and destruction brought by attempts at communism
  
ok, privileged fool.
>When you compare the living standard that of western countries to that of former communist bloc nations, you can see a huge difference
No not really.
>Social democracies, which combine socialism and capitalism, clearly create the highest quality countries to live in.
Social democracies, which don't combine socialism and capitalism and are 100% capitalist...
>It is literally impossible to support Islam and communism without contradicted yourself. No matter how you try to frame it, women and religious minorities are not treated equally in an Islamic society. That is the very antithesis of communism, is it not?
I'd rather you didn't concern yourself so much about my faith. If it worries you so much, just imagine me being slightly more atheistic as you read my arguments. Furthermore I think you should watch this, and just absorb what the guy says.
>I hope you got some sense out of this, if not, at the very least I'm sorry for offering you a helicopter ride. Nobody but the Nazis deserve that.
complains about the horrors and totaltirainizms of communism, and muh poor 100 billion kulaks, but then makes helicopter jokes, neat.
>That's kind of true, the CPC was responsible for the Great Leap Forward famine. At the same time Mao's policies did much more than accidentally cause a famine. He improved literacy and education, he fought for women's and worker's rights and destroyed the old reactionary traditions which harmed people, he conducted land reform and destroyed the old feudal arrangement of things and gave land to the peasants, he industrialized and modernized China making it a superpower, he encouraged the oppressed of the world to fight back against the imperialist dogs and stood as a brick wall against them, and he's probably responsible for China's overpopulation problems right now.
I'm not going to deny the positives, but it is very hard to overlook the fact that millions died in the process, and Mao accomplished this all while ignoring basic human rights. Also, China's economy only managed to rival the US after it adapted to a capitalist form.
>Lenin and Stalin acted like any other leader in history: they put their own class interests and philosophy above all else, and dealt with any opposition using the State. That's not a 'socialist' or 'feudal' thing, that's just a government thing. (see my response to enterpride below for more elaboration)
There are plenty of leaders who never had to resort to killing millions and stamping out all dissidents.
>Work camps are kind of a different topic. First as this graph taken from Wikipedia shows the gulags were far from the 'death camps' they are typically portrayed as in bourgeois media (how hypocritical considering slavery is perfectly fine in America at least as punishment for crime). In general I believe punishment should also include some rehabilitation, and that prisoners should somehow be productive to society rather than just using up tax money like they do now, so I'm not 100% against them.
First of all, those death rates are still unacceptably high. I mean at one point it gets to nearly 1/5th of all prisoners dying. Second, pretty weird how you call prisons "slavery" but are fine with rehabilitation.
>oppression of workers = / = oppression and punishment of criminals.
What does this even mean? Jailing rapists and murderers is somehow worse than sending political dissidents to the gulag?
>No one denies this, and Marxism recognizes this. Your mistake is thinking that just because wages are better, worker's rights are better, and that the 'general condition of the working class has improved', Marxist critiques of capitalist societies have been rendered completely useless.
They are no completely useless no, but their arguments hold less water. Conditions are only going to continue to improve as the world become developed, and we won't need communism in the end.
>  
You calling ME privileged? What a laugh. But I fail to see how it's the fault of capitalism for those deaths, especially when the numbers are so vague and unspecified. Also, as for the second and third links, I don't support most US interventions and I pretty much stated this when I condemned Bautista and the US companies in Cuba.
>No not really.
Let's start with just one example then. South Korea, a capitalist country, has an infinitely higher standard living than North Korea, a "communist" country. Refute this.
>Social democracies, which don't combine socialism and capitalism and are 100% capitalist...
Hmmm, maybe you're right. Alright, let's try this then.
Social democracies, which is capitalism with a large social welfare net, clearly create the highest quality countries to live in.
>I'd rather you didn't concern yourself so much about my faith. If it worries you so much, just imagine me being slightly more atheistic as you read my arguments. Furthermore I think you should watch this, and just absorb what the guy says.
It is extremely difficult not to concern myself with it when it contradicts all of your supposed beliefs. And that video and its creator are both garbage, especially when one of his videos consists of a defense of the Winter War, a very imperialist action by Stalin.
>complains about the horrors and totaltirainizms of communism, and muh poor 100 billion kulaks, but then makes helicopter jokes, neat.
Okay, so it's fine when you advocate for the suspension of basic human rights and political opposition unironically it's fine, but me apologizing for making a joke in bad taste is worse?
>I'm not going to deny the positives, but it is very hard to overlook the fact that millions died in the process
It certainly is hard. At the same time, you claimed that Mao's reforms 'only killed peasants', and this is also something that is frequently parroted and outlined among the bourgeois intellectuals and philistines, almost never in mainstream conversation does anyone mention the great differences in Chinese society between the 1940s and mid 1970s, just muh Mao Zedong killed 60 million people with his bare hands for no apparent reason because that's what ebil gommies do I guess.
>while ignoring basic human rights
Mao didn't ignore basic human rights. He stripped the reactionaries and bourgeoisie of their rights while granting them to the peasants, much like how the reactionaries did the opposite when they were in power. Lenin says a similar thing here:
Let the liars and hypocrites, the dull-witted and blind, the bourgeois and their supporters hoodwink the people with talk about freedom in general, about equality in general, about democracy in general.
We say to the workers and peasants: Tear the masks from the faces of these liars, open the eyes of these blind ones. Ask them:
“Equality between what sex and what other sex?
“Between what nation and what other nation?
“Between what class and what other class?
“Freedom from what yoke, or from the yoke of what class? Freedom for what class?”
>There are plenty of leaders who never had to resort to killing millions and stamping out all dissidents.
Moot and irrelevant.
>I mean at one point it gets to nearly 1/5th of all prisoners dying.
The highest rates were during World War 2, specifically 1942 the year after Operation Barborossa, so that's hardly surprising. You'd have a lot more ground to work with if the high rates were consistent across all years.
>Second, pretty weird how you call prisons "slavery" but are fine with rehabilitation.
Slavery is the the specific word used in the 13th amendment, hence why I used it.
>What does this even mean? Jailing rapists and murderers is somehow worse than sending political dissidents to the gulag?
You said how could I stand for oppression when Stalin sent people to gulags, I was merely pointing out the difference in the bourgeoisie oppressing a worker and punishment for a crime.
>They are no completely useless no, but their arguments hold less water. Conditions are only going to continue to improve as the world become developed, and we won't need communism in the end.
The day the bourgeoisie give up sacred private property and sacred surplus value is the day they lose their power over the workers. In other words this is something that will never happen, capitalism will never magically transcend to communism with peace and more and more intensified capitalism and imperialism, fucking lmao. To go to communism from capitalism will require a long and protracted class struggle and bloodshed, just like going to bourgeois liberal democracy from feudalism did, just like going to feudalism from slave societies did.
"Changes in society are due chiefly to the development of the internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradiction between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradiction between classes and the contradiction between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the suppression of the old society by the new." Chairman Mao
In what way does social democracy mean Marxism holds 'less water'? I'd love it if you told me how using the three components of Marxism outlined here, do specifically tell me how free college and healthcare means this all means nothing and we should instead intensify capitalism to magically become communist, nevermind the fact that communism is very different from capitalism.
>But I fail to see how it's the fault of capitalism for those deaths, especially when the numbers are so vague and unspecified
Because we have the means to end all those deaths easily, but due to capitalism, specifically the fact that capitalism (yes even social democracies!) upholds private property and profit over human lives, we cannot save those people. Funny how a person dying from starvation in socialist country is a point against socialism, but when a person dies in capitalism its just 'vague and unspecificed (?)'
>Also, as for the second and third links, I don't support most US interventions and I pretty much stated this when I condemned Bautista and the US companies in Cuba.
It doesn't matter what your interests are, as what we are personally concerning ourselves with are the bourgeoisies class interests, which include imperialism, death, and war in order to retain and uphold the shackles of capital over the world.
>Social democracies, which is capitalism with a large social welfare net, clearly create the highest quality countries to live in.
It really doesn't matter because they're still capitalist countries which means they suffer from all the contradictions which plague any other 'regular' capitalist country. I'm sure free college is nice and all but its ultimately quite irrelevant.
>At the same time, you claimed that Mao's reforms 'only killed peasants', and this is also something that is frequently parroted and outlined among the bourgeois intellectuals and philistines, almost never in mainstream conversation does anyone mention the great differences in Chinese society between the 1940s and mid 1970s, just muh Mao Zedong killed 60 million people with his bare hands for no apparent reason because that's what ebil gommies do I guess.
No, I acknowledged the positives he brought when you mentioned them. I didn't deny the good he did, albeit at a cost. Don't bring mainstream conversation into this, this is between me and you.
>Mao didn't ignore basic human rights.
>He stripped the reactionaries and bourgeoisie of their rights
How does this make sense to you? Are "bourgeoisie" and "reactionaries" suddenly not human? And justifying this kind of action based on the fact that another dictator did it to another group of people is no excuse.
And that quote by Lenin is absolute nonsensical drivel.
>Moot and irrelevant.
No, not moot and irrelevant. You said that "Lenin and Stalin acted like any other leader in history", when clearly there are examples to the contrary, and few that went to the length that they did.
>You'd have a lot more ground to work with if the high rates were consistent across all years.
They're pretty damn high in the years before the war, and all the years are far higher than any sort of death rate for US prisons.
>Slavery is the the specific word used in the 13th amendment, hence why I used it.
Yes, penal labor is allowed if you commit a crime in the United States, which I don't support. But this seems very hypocritical of you especially since you support the gulags, of which the entire function was to serve as a work camp.
>You said how could I stand for oppression when Stalin sent people to gulags, I was merely pointing out the difference in the bourgeoisie oppressing a worker and punishment for a crime.
Jailing someone for murder is not "bourgeoisie oppressing a worker", it's putting away a criminal who murdered, raped, or otherwise harmed other people.
Punishment for crimes such as daring to express a contrary opinion? Protesting the actions of the government? Unspeakable.
>The day the bourgeoisie give up sacred private property and sacred surplus value is the day they lose their power over the workers. In other words this is something that will never happen, capitalism will never magically transcend to communism with peace and more and more intensified capitalism and imperialism, fucking lmao. To go to communism from capitalism will require a long and protracted class struggle and bloodshed, just like going to bourgeois liberal democracy from feudalism did, just like going to feudalism from slave societies did.
I'm not advocating for capitalism to go to communism, I'm stating that capitalism will be improved with social and economic reform until to the point where everybody has a good standard of living.
A long and protracted class struggle and bloodshed? Doesn't sound quite as good as a continuously improving quality of life under a social democracy.
>In what way does social democracy mean Marxism holds 'less water'? I'd love it if you told me how using the three components of Marxism outlined here, do specifically tell me how free college and healthcare means this all means nothing and we should instead intensify capitalism to magically become communist, nevermind the fact that communism is very different from capitalism.
I'm really not sure where you got the idea that I support a transition to communism, because I don't. At all. A social democracy removes most, if not all of the potential threats to a worker. Universal healthcare means that the worker isn't burdened with costs for his health, something he is entitled to. A high minimum wage guarantees that the worker is able to create a high standard of life for himself. Free college gives everyone an opportunity to build skills and qualities that could potential earn them higher-paying jobs. It gives workers what they need without the political oppression and violent revolution that Marxism/communism demands.
>Because we have the means to end all those deaths easily, but due to capitalism, specifically the fact that capitalism (yes even social democracies!) upholds private property and profit over human lives, we cannot save those people. Funny how a person dying from starvation in socialist country is a point against socialism, but when a person dies in capitalism its just 'vague and unspecificed (?)'
Tell me, how do social democracy uphold private property and profit over human lives?
And I will give you that western media often exaggerates deaths under communism, and that some capitalist countries are behind in human and economic rights, but I fail to see how communist countries do any better.
>It doesn't matter what your interests are, as what we are personally concerning ourselves with are the bourgeoisies class interests, which include imperialism, death, and war in order to retain and uphold the shackles of capital over the world.
Yeah did does matter what my interests are, because you thought waving US interventions in my face was relevant when I don't support most of them.
>It really doesn't matter because they're still capitalist countries which means they suffer from all the contradictions which plague any other 'regular' capitalist country. I'm sure free college is nice and all but its ultimately quite irrelevant.
Yes, free college is very nice. You know what is also nice? Universal healthcare. Oh, and high minimum wages as well. And you know what's funny for me? The fact that social democracies such as Sweden managed to do this without millions of deaths , without the crushing of political opposition, and without the suffering of the workers, something that communist countries somehow never managed to accomplish. What are the workers fighting for if they have all of their rights, and more? What does communism give to the workers if they have everything they need?
All they will be fighting for is the right to starve, the right to have their freedoms taken away, the right to be used, the right to have their individual identities taken away in favor of one enormous collective that sucks all uniqueness and dissent out of a person.
There was a link to a video by someone called the FinnishBolshevik, and I want to just talk about that for a second.
A minute thirty in, he's not addressed liberal Islamaphobia. Next, it's that the Young Turks videos on sexism and Islam have loads of dislikes, so that means liberals hate women and Muslims, because rather than the Young Turks being wrong, or Conservatives hating the Young Turks, no, that means Liberals and Muslims are racist and sexist.
Another minute thirty, he's not made any rebuttals. Next, it's that Atheists don't think Islam is worse than Christianity, "and somehow, that's not fucking racist". No, that's not. Islam's not a race, that's not hard to understand. He addresses this right after, and actually is quite racist, saying "Yeah, they're a bunch of African people, and a bunch of Middle Eastern people." That's a downright lie. There's many white Muslims, or European Muslims or American Muslims or Australian Muslims. It seems he's far more racist in his characterization of Muslims than liberals. See, I think white Muslims or as stupid as brown ones, and brown Atheists are as correct as white ones, so that doesn't stick.
I've never heard liberal Islamaphobics call Muslims "Sand N-Words". I haven't heard them call them Sand Niggers, either, that's not a liberal thing. Sam Harris doesn't do that, even though that's the example he's railing again. Calling Muslims primitives and savages is a huge generalization, but not racist, as Islam tends to be far more into literalism than say Judaism nowadays, and as many of them follow their savage, primitive book closer, they're more savage and primitive. Saying that Islam is worse than Christianity again, isn't racism.
He then brings up that the source material is basically identical. I'd agree, for the Jewish Text and Muslim Text, but the New Testament is far kinder. It's more of a judgy aunt than a brutal warlord. But yeah, inherently, these texts are pretty similarly terrible. But modern day Judaism doesn't tend to follow the Old Testament. I can't remember the last time Jews burned a witch, while Islamic cultures lean towards this. The problem is, Muslims follow their religion, and that's why Islam is terrible.
Then, some stuff about Martyrdom. He whines that they didn't have suicide bombs in the Quran, but no, they just had charging in and dying fighting, dipshit, and that translates to bombs. Then Jesus, who was indeed a Marytr, but the thing is, he didn't kill anyone on his way out. Quite the oppossite, so it's far more different to the Quran.
Then, he says there's not a lot of Muslims, but that's just wrong. Look at support for Sharia law in Muslim majority countries. That's fucking radicalism, and there's a shit ton of it. Then it's the Bible, which again, promotes peace and non-violence, even though it's hypocritical and ultimately as evil in it's end goal.
I don't think this guy gets that Sam Harris also doesn't like Christianity either. They're both bad, pointing out problems in Christianity doesn't help. I'd say it's clear that the Muslim ideology is a dangerous one, and should be ultimately destroyed through education, and he doesn't do anything to refute that, only pointing out that we shouldn't hate all Muslims, and we shouldn't like Christianity, which there's not a lot of big liberals arguing for.
So, we have another dude who doesn't understand what he's talking about, strawmanning and whining until the cows come home, and in the end, he says Atheism's the way to go anyway, so Fazz is still being a twat. What a failure.
No, your parents do, and you take all the profits from the exploitation of them. You're part of the Bourgoisie, as you're part of that class. As you said, being born poor means fuck all, as class mobility doesn't matter. It discredits what you say because it makes you a massive hypocrite who is happy to take all the benefits of capitalism, living a nice life with luxury, and then whining about it.
You're not one of the classic "I'm using the system to destroy it!", you're enjoying the benefits and luxuries, which people's suffering gave you, yet you take it none the less, you absolute hypocrite.
So what do you think the solution to this hypocrisy is? Killing my parents? Running away from home and becoming homeless? Because I'll definitely become more useful to the revolutionary movement when I'm in jail or poor and without a home, than I am living a good life in good health and good security and having the ability to educate myself about this.
You've always criticized me for this 'problem' and yet I've never seen you posit a solution before.
You seem to be pretty happy with the death of other people's parents.
Malk, the Bourgeoisie are scum who deserve to be starved to death, but not Fazz or his family, leave them out of it.
Stop taking money from your parents. This isn't a slave eating his master's slave. This is...
"I don't like living in a slave society!"
"But you're eating food grown by the slaves while sitting on your fat ass!"
I probably won't be taking their money once I eventually become self sufficient (somewhere between 2-4 years I assume, about when i graduate school and move out and start a career etc), as I don't see why I would. but, I don't really have a choice right now, so i kind of have to. i still think im able to criticize it in any case.
In other words, "I'm still going to continue taking their money and exploiting the proletariat" because... oh, you don't give a reason. Because you're going to stop, eventually? Not even for certain, but probably. That's not a defense on any level.
"Officer, I sold the heroin, sure, but I planned to stop selling heroin in about 2-4 years. Now, can I go?"
You're a hypocritical scumbag. Stop exploiting the proletariat and fuck off with your Communist speak while your foot rests on the back of the working man.
"While your family may have had a bad experience in the USSR, presumably because they were of the ruling elites before the workers came into power..."
Because the ruling elites were the people who had 'bad experiences' in the USSR...?
Inside your head must be a very strange place, Fazz. I think you should seek counseling.
From Steve, of course.
youre an absolute idiot.
obviously the ruling elites which existed in the USSR (the workers) were different from the elites which existed in the russian empire and the kerensky government (the monarchy, the capitalists, the reactionaries). after the revolution and after the workers became the new elites, the ex-elites which existed in the previous society (perhaps some of wizzy’s family members) were persecuted, oppressed, and suffered greatly as a result of their crimes, and rightly so.
So yes the ex-elites did have quite bad experiences. the common people, peasantry, and workers had it substantially better.
The ruling elites in the USSR weren't the workers, they were the heads of the Communist party, who were insanely corrupt, and lived far better lives than the workers who they paid lip service to.
But also, it's nice to know you support oppression based on class. I'm sure all the many people who were brutally treated by the regime, including children and peasants who were far from holding property, really deserved it.
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
Probably safer that he's a tankie. If he was a Muslim fundy, he might actually go out and do some damage, as a tankie he's mostly just going to scold about all of us being boogee pig scum.
As a tankie, once the revolution succeeds and I become First Premier and Chairman of the United Socialist States of America, I swear to god I will make it 200 million.
No, you're an idiot. Perhaps you should read a book or two about the USSR before saying loads of shit. My families were both were poor and they were farmers and soldiers. So they were most certainly in the working class. The problem is, is that the USSR wasn't ruled by the working class, but by Stalin, and then some more retards, who sold the country's wheat supplies and killed innocent people. Also, the way labor was organized was terrible. My dad, who has a PhD in microbiology, had to work in a LEMONADE FACTORY. Like, da fuq?
The USSR, at least under the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, was a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was actually a good thing that they and the other Bolsheviks led the country as opposed to some random farmer or factory worker, because a) they made up the most advanced sections of the working class, which meant that they weren’t bourgeoisie and b) since again they were the most advanced they actually knew how to run a country, especially a socialist one, as opposed to a random peasant like your parents for instance.
People claim that because the Bolsheviks were not of the most downtrodden and impoverished of the country, the USSR was not a worker’s state, led by and for workers. So what does that mean? The Bolsheviks were bourgeoisie? The USSR was actually capitalist? That random peasants and factory workers should’ve made up the ruling circles as opposed to people who actually knew how to run a government, especially one based on the principles of Marxism-Leninism?
I don’t think Lenin killed innocent people. Maybe Stalin did, but probably not as exaggerated as it is by bourgeois intellectuals. In any case, terror and authoritarianism are an inherent and necessary part of any government so long as class exists as an institution. When class exists, all government is inherently dictatorship. This is because class society is the will of one class imposed over all others. In the USSR, it was the workers’ interests imposed over the bourgeoisie. in capitalism, it is the bourgeoisie’s interests over the workers. In feudalism, it is the monarchy over the bourgeoisie, etc. In order to protect this relationship, the ruling class will, again, use means of terror and authoritarianism to make sure they survive and to protect their institutions. This is another way by which we know the USSR was a dictatorship of workers, and how we also know it was the workers who were the elites in the USSR, not the bourgeoisie, not the monarchy, not the reactionaries, and so on.
Sorry to hear about your dad I guess?
I’m just curious, if you are so vehemently against socialism in the USSR and Leninism because of what youre parents have told you what made you decided to ‘be’ a communist? Is it just because it sounds nice to you or something? Because for me one of the most convincing things was reading about how socialism greatly improved the lives of the people in many different countries.
Have you ever heard of the proverb 'power corrupts'? Well there is another one saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely. My personal belief is that power also attracts power. Why is this relevant? Let me explain below.
This is why Montesquieu is so praised among most modern people. The idea is that when you divide the power, you create a system where none can impose their will upon the rest. The result is achieved freedom for people to do as they please, as long as it's within the bounds of an objective and universally accepted law. Human beings are a diverse lot. Every one has other ideas on how to deal with the current problems in society. This system allows every voice to be heard.
Another result is social mobility. This is where you raise, or lower your societal status based on your performance, not your agreeability with the current ruling power. You want to be a CEO, you can start your own company. You want to be a doctor, you can enlist in an university and based on your abilities you will be chosen. You want to work in construction, you can apply for a job there. Do you slack off, you'll screw up those opportunities and get fired. This forces everyone to do their very best to get on top. To either work very hard, or very smart. You are getting paid for what the society believes you provide as value to it.
Yes, this system is not perfect. But, at least as it is implemented in Western Europe, it works. The principles behind the Trias Politica are ironically even found in the economy there. Worker unions, companies and the government all work together to create a productive but fair economy. Yes, this balance of power has been upset by globalisation, giving more power to the companies. However the rise of the knowledge economy and overall greater political cooperation between countries will both try to change that in the upcoming decades.
Communism on the other hand had been created when all of this wasn't in place. During that time period the owners of the factories had all the means of efficient production. They saturated the market with cheaper products, outcompeting the artisans. Without any supervision of a central government they could then proceed to do as they pleased, to try to amass as much wealth and power as they could by any means. The artisans who could now not make ends meet, were thus in a completely powerless position. They had to submit to the whims of the capitalists in order to hold a job and receive any income. This is bad stuff, but that was back then. That was the situation in 1867. This situation was unacceptable and needed drastic change.
However the situation between that and now has changed drastically in the hundredandsomething years. More people started to notice these problems, socialism was created. They tried to change the system from within the system. Where the communists raped their countries in ultimately failed experiments, these social democrats implemented real change. They enforced the abolition of child labour, implemented minimum wage and better working conditions. They addressed and fixed the problems trough the government and thus invalidated the need of a violent rebellion. Karl Marx saw the support of his theory dry up quickly in Western Europe. He kept waiting for the revolution to come until he died.
Society's needs are also much more diverse now than then. A poor man needed food, liquor and a roof, the basics of survival. Nowadays his needs are a tad bit more complex. He wants more and more stuff that can't be produced in a factory anymore. He wants stuff that even the rich from 1867 couldn't even dream of. He wants a good education, diverse entertainment, safety and other inventive and new solutions to the current problems. This 'newly' created market is much less rigid. The barrier of entry in also much lower. The factory owners are outcompeted by new businesses sprouted from the working class itself.
What you are advocating for is basically an outdated concept. A revolution to put all of the above, a tried and proven system, in the trash and to replace it authoritarianism and terror all in the name of fixing fixed problems. Yes our current system is not perfect, but right now it suffices. No system can be perfect when the human race itself is imperfect. When you look at it this way, communism is something no sane man would want.
Sorry bro but we've been over this before.
http://chooseyourstory.com/forums/the-lounge/message/22966 Do a control + f for "Interesting... When I get the time I'll see if I can work through the links you've sent." and read the post he was responding to and the resulting debate.
>What you are advocating for is basically an outdated concept.
>However the situation between that and now has changed drastically in the hundredandsomething years.
Like the guy I debated in the linked thread you greatly misunderstand Marxist criticism of capitalist mode of production.
What I've read is that you inevitably fail to refute most arguments presented. You either misread them, nitpick on details or fail to respond entirely. What I've learned is that trying to convince you with a large body of text is mostly wasted energy. I'll leave you then with one short sentence.
Nothing is more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.
Pretty much summed up half of the debates on this site.
Oh beautiful, I forgot where that is. Here we learn:
-Fazz is fine with exploiting the Proletariat to live well, as long as it's his daddy doing it rather than him. Happy out to take the profit from that.
-His dad having worked hard from a poor immigrant in a ghetto to paying for his rich, exploitative son to love Communism is a great example of the joys of Capitalism.
-Fazz constantly cites sources hoping no one will read them, as many of them disagree with him.
-I point out the joys of Keynesian economics, and because he doesn't understand it, he just responds with "No, Communism's the only way!" without explaining.
-Fazz is pro-Imperialism.
-Fazz agrees in class mobility and you can become successful from hard work.
-Fazz supports using the state to oppress people.
One of my favorite lines is this: "Besides the bits on class mobility (which I don't see how I have not already answered), Keynesian economics helping in times of recession, and Mao Zedong's alleged imperialism (which isn't rather relevant) all of your arguments can be answered through basic understanding of Marx and Lenin..."
Here, it's clear Fazz doesn't even attempt to deal with Keynesian economics, as he doesn't understand it, and doesn't care to actually expand his knowledge. He attempts to push off criticism by telling them to just leave him alone and deal with the source, even though the source has already been easily dealt with.
Fazz quite clearly doesn't understand Communism, but likes the idea of it, and likes quoting the classics like Lenin and Mao. He's part of the Bourgeoisie he despises, and is a piece of shit son to his father, who clearly worked hard to give him a good life, only for Fazz to deem his father worthy of oppression, indifferent to his suffering and seeing him deserving of a fucking Holodomor.
It's like he's an upset kid, latching onto whatever radical ideology will show his dad he's a rebel, be it his earlier Islamism or his Communism nowadays. Hopefully, he'll be one of the ones who grows out of it rather than going out in Tavistock Square with an explosives vest.
"Let's hope you and I never discuss Marxism again" -FazzTheMan, 2017
Ok lets see then.
-There is no way to prove that proverb, its ultimately pretty useless in debate (addressed in linked thread)
-Most governments are divided and are still dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The system DOES NOT allow “every voice to be heard” you fucking moron. How can you so callously and nonchalantly reject the existence of the state (addressed in linked thread)
-Social mobility doesnt exist on a substantial level because we dont live in meritocracy and even if it did it really doesnt matter (addressed in link thread)
-Succdem methods are used to quell class consciousness, dont solve the contradictions of capitalism, and are the moderate wing of fascism. Ultimately they don’t dissolve Marxism or something. Marxist critiques could still easily apply to sweden or finland
-You misunderstand marxist criticism of capitalism. Marxist criticism of capitalism is still valid today. (addressed in linked thread)
-Marx saw a revolution, the Paris Commune
-The existence of petty bourgeoisie is largely irrelevant and doesnt solve the contradictions of capitalism (addressed in linked thread)
-the human race isnt imperfect lmao
?Stop licking boots and read a book
lol I like how both you and Fazz are yelling at people to read books, but only the books that conform with your beliefs.
Books are you know good mkay, but not the bad ones. Those are fake news.
My mistake, I should have said 'Stop licking boots and read a book that isn't outdated liberal nonsense.'
Ah now I've struck gold. Thank you Fazz for making my evening. Maybe we can have a nice conversation. I'll forego the other things in my post and just respond to these bulletmarks. Let's address the others points and not talk past one another. If I mistakenly overread one of your arguments, please point that one out.
1) -So here I'm thinking you're talking about 'power begets power', correct me if I'm wrong please. Marx has stated that capitalists will compete against one another. This results in acquisition of their means of production into a 'selecter' few. This in turn results in the accumulation and concentration of wealth by those select few. One can argue that money equals power, even Marx seems to think that means of production equals power. Do you then refute Marx's sayings?
2) -You're goddamn right that most governments are divided. That is the whole principle of Trias Politica after all! Also the fact that every citizen can enlist or even make their own party, and every citizen is able to vote that said citizen in, means there is no dictatorship whatsoever. No fucking one has absolute authority in our government, that is the whole fucking groundwork they are based upon.
Also, with the rise of modern, decentralised and social media every voice is getting heard. The more people deem your opinion not full of shit, the more your voice gets heard. That is imho a good thing, reduces clutter.
I've often been called callous, but thus far never about something I do not know about. In my book is the state an hierarchical organisation who holds power and responsibility over a population, it is accompanied by law and dictates a monopoly of violence. Those are actually good things you know. With a population density of 411 dudes in one square kilometer, fights are bound to happen. I'd like a stronger objective party to protect my safety and wellbeing. And as long as that organisation is being elected by those same people, I believe they represent my interests quite well. Nothing callous or nonchalant about it, I just assumed it was common knowledge. What do you mean exactly?
3) -Here you are telling me that social mobility does not exist on a substantial level. Well at least you're admitting it's there at all. That's good. Your claim about meritocracy is a more absolute thing, so I'll focus on that. How then do you explain entrance exams in universities, tests in high school? Yes, there are complete incompetent fuckwarts out there. Yes they even hold important positions based on their network of acquaintances.
But that does not mean you cannot build such a network on your own. The moment you're active and out there in your field, visit gatherings and publish papers, you will be noticed. You will build up professional relationships, who will in turn introduce you to others, vouch for you and otherwise help you, as long as you're prepared to do the same. Yes, that sounds like a filthy oligarchy, but when you aren't competent you wouldn't be there at all. That is meritocracy. By the way, these are all theoretic definitions, reality doesn't fit perfectly in any box.
4) -Here I think you wanted to use socdem, social democrat. Alright so you say relieving a class of its troubles, helping fix the problems they are angry about is quelling their consciousness? Well that is one interesting way to look at it. I personally call it actually helping
Next up you call them the moderate wing of fascism. That is my goldmine right there. Fascism is antidemocratic, anticommunist, antiliberal antiparlementary and anti-intellectual. The only thing in this list I see social democrats are guilty of, are anti communistic tendencies. The others are quite vital in order for their vision to work. Democracy is even found in their name, I think they'll quite value that one don't you think?
5) -Correct me if I'm wrong. Marx saw capitalism firstly as a huge improvement over feudalism and slave-based economies. So he's a pretty rational fellow in my book thus far. Then he proceeds to note that this system leads to dehumanisation, exploitation and impoverisation of the working class. I can write down most of the theoretical mechanisms that would, according to him, lead to it. But I prefer examples from reality. Alright let's compare 150 years of capitalism.
I guess we don't have it so bad right now after all.
6) - Ah you're right. I concede that one. There was a small scale revolution. Although I could argue it only happened after the citizens were angered enough by a defeat from their longstanding rival: Prussia & friends. This is hardly the big revolution where the workers throw down the oppression of the nation-states, bind their hands together and sing along a campfire merrily ever after. But I won't. I honestly don't know any specifics abut that topic, so I''ll let it go.
7) -I would argue otherwise. For one, only having something in between the big scary dark bourgeoisie and and the holy white workers is a big step up from the current us and them mentality. More practically it allows for actual social mobility, even if it is across multiple generations.
8) -"the human race isnt imperfect lmao" Now we're back to the fucking uhuh and nuhuh? Alright let's see it from this way. Why the fuck is there hunger, pollution, (child) abuse, genocide, bigotry and other shit? Why the fuck are there even murders? Hell, why do we still have a coccyx and can't we fly, shoot lasers out of our eyes and do a triple backflip?
And we've strayed even further from the uhuhs and nuhuhs. We're back to ad hominems. Great stuff. I also like how it's specified I need to read a book (solid advice by the way, knowledge is power after all), but not which one.
Alright, just read these posts, practise some critical thinking. You don't even need books for this one. I'd just like to hear your thoughts man.
1. I was actually referring to this dumb thing
>Have you ever heard of the proverb 'power corrupts'? Well there is another one saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
There is no real way to prove that, or at least I've never seen anyone present evidence for it so in my opinion its really not worth engaging or parroting about.
2. So first I'd like to apologize for calling you a 'fucking moron' although tbf what you did say was rather moronic.
The point is while the government is divided, it really doesn't matter because the bourgeoisie still control everything. it doesn't matter if you vote in 'candidate a' or 'candidate b' because they will both be bourgeoisie and will protect reactionary institutions and reactionary philosophy. Trias Politica is a bourgeois phenomena created as the bourgeoisie became more and more tired of feudal rule. What I'm saying is, it's ultimately an outdated and flawed concept and we should resolutely and thoroughly expose these hypocrisies like 'political freedom', 'separation of powers', and 'democracy' for the frauds they are.
>Also the fact that every citizen can enlist or even make their own party, and every citizen is able to vote that said citizen in, means there is no dictatorship whatsoever
We can easily dispel this as false both historically and theoretically. The fact that anyone can make their own political party or join a party is just a facade. Political freedom and democracy is something that simply does not exist in class society.
I'd like to start my evidence historically because it's just easier. If there really is political freedom in our bourgeois democracy, then how do you explain            
I know all these links are American examples of the usage of the State to secure and protect bourgeois rule, but it's just because it's convenient to use America as an example, plus I'm sure we're both Americans (I am American). But ultimately any society or country in history is the same because class and society have always been hand in hand -- basically when class exists in society, the upper class will always use authoritarian means to secure and protect their institutions and philosophy. A society that does not, does not last long, because if there's no way to prevent revolution, then revolution will occur. That is why we say all government is dictatorship. To be a capitalist or a socialist, respectively, is to be in support of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Here is a quote by Friedrich Engels which is relevant and dispels your bourgeois lies and fiction:
"Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists. Would the Paris Commune have lasted a single day if it had not made use of this authority of the armed people against the bourgeois? Should we not, on the contrary, reproach it for not having used it freely enough?" On Authority
Also it's funny how you say separation of powers means everyone is more free or whatever. "The bourgeoisie ... lets him have the appearance of acting from a free choice, of making a contract with free, unconstrained consent, as a responsible agent who has attained his majority. Fine freedom, where the proletarian has no other choice than that of either accepting the conditions which the bourgeoisie offers him, or of starving, of freezing to death, of sleeping naked among the beasts of the forests!" Another Engels quote.
3. (Note: sorry if the following doesn't flow all that seamlessly, I wrote most of it for a debate I had a long time ago, but it also applies here.)
We live in a class based society, and like any other class based society, there will always have to be a slave, serf, peon, proletariat, or otherwise lower class for the society to function. Society cannot function if everyone owns the means of production now can it? Therefore it doesn't really matter that 'there's a lot of class mobility' in our society. Even if it were true it ignores the reality that there will always have to be a lower class for the society to function.
In essence, the reason why not everyone is going to get to become a bourgeoisie or otherwise live a good life is because A) we don't live in pure meritocracy, so not everyone is going to be able to get success from hard work and B) our capitalist mode of production would not be able to function if everyone was one class.
The reactionary counter argument would be, I guess, 'well maybe if these lazy moochers worked hard enough they'd become the next President or the next CEO of Wal Mart!' but I reject this because to say that 30% - 35% (the amount of working class in America) of the population, millions of people mind you, are just lazy and this is the reason why they're not living upper class lives is absurd in my opinion. This also ignores the very real systems of exploitation and oppression and the many obstacles present in a class society to prevent class mobility. If you want, I can elaborate on some of these obstacles. But generally these obstacles include the problem of wage theft and surplus value, the fact that capitalism is shit at resource distribution as it places profit and property rights over human lives, and of course oppression from the State in the form of the police, military, NSA, CIA, FBI, and all the other organs which work to protect the bourgeoisie, bourgeois democracy, and bourgeois freedom, and keep the working class oppressed, crushed, and inarticulate. Not to mention again this does not address the fact that capitalism could not function if everyone was a bourgeoisie.
It is therefore my belief that this 'bootstraps argument' ('if only you'd pull yourself up by your own bootstraps you could have success') is one that is quite flawed because it is not true to the reality of our society, and instead is more representative of an idealist meritocratic society as seen through the lenses of privileged people who don't have to work as hard as disenfranchised or poor people in order to achieve the same success. In essence, I'm sure it's easy for a privileged person to say, 'why not just pull yourself up by your own bootstraps you lazy moocher, if only you worked hard enough you could be the President' But this viewpoint is simply a bullshit idealist one, again, not true to our society, only parroted by people benefiting from the capitalist mode of production.
Ultimately our society is not one based on meritocracy. More often than not, success is based on luck and privilege rather than genuine hard work. You have to be lucky enough to be born with good genetics to a good family with good wealth in a good environment with good opportunities, good education, good people, good government, good infrastructure, and so on. And if you're not, well have fun struggling your entire life. I'm fairly confident that a child slave in Africa mining for the materials used to create iPhones works far more harder than his boss. I'm also confident that a sweatshop worker creating clothing for Nike works far more harder than his boss. Yet as we see, the amount of work one puts in is quite disproportionate to the amount of success one achieves.
To clarify, I do not believe that you cannot become successful through hard work. There are many examples of rags-to-rich stories wherein people are able to ascend to the next class based on their own hard work. However, I think that, especially for people who aren't meant to be, there are quite many obstacles inherent in capitalist societies that keep lower class people from transitioning to higher classes and thus better lives. I don't see how this reactionary argument you're positing to me solves this issue. If anything it just completely ignores the fact that not everyone is going to get to live good lives through hard work. Furthermore, in order to become successful in capitalist society (ie, in order to become a bourgeoisie) there is a certain point where you have to begin exploiting others. Let's say someone starts a business with the hope that it one day becomes a powerful company, the essence of the American Dream. Well as the company expands and grows, the founder will eventually begin hiring more workers, and acquiring more means of production. The capitalist will acquire the surplus value the workers generate to create profit. Of course, this is theft and exploitation. But the capitalist cannot ignore this or try to side step it, otherwise he will not generate profit and will not be able to become bourgeoisie. Therefore, in order to become higher class, you HAVE to exploit others.
This is why I say 1) There isn't a lot of class mobility in our society and 2) It doesn't matter if we did have it in the first place.
4. Class consciousness is when workers realize that capitalism doesn't benefit their class interests and instead their real interests lie in banding together in the pursuit of socialism and communism.
Imagine you own a hungry dog. The hungry dog wants meat but its owner, you, doesn't want to give it meat. Every day, the dog continues to this realization that you will not give it meat and therefore it should revolt against you, the master, and forcefully get the subsistence it requires. The dog begins collaborating with another dog from across the street, and this other dog is much more intellectual and studied and begins strengthening and consolidating the dog's revolutionary fervor with a solid theoretical backing. You the owner realize the dog is beginning to foment mutinous thoughts so you begin to feed it doggie treats and biscuits in order to quell its revolutionary activities and thoughts.The dog is satisfied for the mean time and forgets its oppression and exploitation. Meanwhile the biscuits don't actually solve the dog's core problem -- which is it is hungry for something that will actually subsist it. That is essentially social democracy.
Social democracy does not solve the main contradictions of capitalism. Social democracy does not solve the problem of market distribution, it does not solve wage slavery and wage theft, it does not solve the problems of surplus value. It does not solve imperialism, exploitation, and oppression. It just offers nice little treats and biscuits that are ultimately facades. Therefore communists and rational people thoroughly and resolutely reject it.
Now imagine a different scenario. You own a hungry dog, and the dog is growing more and more revolutionary. But this time you decide upon a different solution -- you consolidate and strengthen your power and mastery over the dog, you abuse and beat the dog, and keep it one corner of the room, and tape its mouth and eyes and ears shut, and starve it even more. That is basically fascism.
In both cases, fascism and social democracy are used to quell the revolutionary spirit. That is the relationship between the two -- when the capitalists realize that a revolutionary movement is fomenting they realize they must do something about it and both social democracy and fascism are two ways by which Porky can accomplish this.
5. >I guess we don't have it so bad right now after all.
Sure but exploitation, oppression, imperialism, and the rest of the contradictions of capitalism which Marxism exposes to us still exist and have not been solved yet. And the only way to solve them is embracing revolution and socialism.
8. My bad i thought you meant humanity is inherently evil or something stupid and unscientific like that, rather than just being imperfect in general.
9. The State and Revolution is a must read for you.
Here is a Lenin quote which I think would tie this up nicely:
Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be "equality" between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real "freedom" as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.
Whoever speaks of politics, of democracy, of liberty, of equality, of socialism, and does not at the same time ask these questions, does not put them in the foreground, does not fight against concealing, hushing up and glossing over these questions, is one of the worst enemies of the toilers, is a wolf in sheep's clothing, is a bitter opponent of the workers and peasants, is a servant of the landlords, tsars, capitalists.
In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the "strong" sex than all the advanced, enlightened, "democratic" republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.
Enlightenment, culture, civilisation, liberty--in all capitalist, bourgeois republics of the world all these fine words are combined with extremely infamous, disgustingly filthy and brutally coarse laws in which woman is treated as an inferior being, laws dealing with marriage rights and divorce, with the inferior status of a child born out of wedlock as compared with that of a "legitimate" child, laws granting privileges to men, laws that are humiliating and insulting to women.
The yoke of capital, the tyranny of "sacred private property", the despotism of philistine stupidity, the greed of petty proprietors --these are the things that prevented the most democratic bourgeois republics from infringing upon those filthy and infamous laws.
The Soviet Republic, the republic of workers and peasants, promptly wiped out these laws and left not a stone in the structure of bourgeois fraud and bourgeois hypocrisy.
Down with this fraud! Down with the liars who are talking of freedom and equality for all, while there is an oppressed sex, while there are oppressor classes, while there is private ownership of capital, of shares, while there are the well-fed with their surplus of bread who keep the hungry in bondage. Not freedom for all, not equality for all, but a fight against the oppressors and exploiters, the abolition of every possibilityof oppression and exploitation-that is our slogan!
Freedom and equality for the oppressed sex!
Freedom and equality for the workers, for the toiling peasants!
A fight against the oppressors, a fight against the capitalists, a fight against the profiteering kulaks!
That is our fighting slogan, that is our proletarian truth, the truth of the struggle against capital, the truth which we flung in the face of the world of capital with its honeyed, hypocritical, pompous phrases about freedom and equality in general, about freedom and equality for all.
And for the very reason that we have torn down the mask of this hypocrisy, that we are introducing with revolutionary energy freedom and equality for the oppressed and for the toilers, against the oppressors, against the capitalists, against the kulaks--for this very reason the Soviet government has become so dear to the hearts of workers of the whole world.
It is for this very reason that, on the second anniversary of the Soviet power, the: sympathies of the masses of the workers, the sympathies of the oppressed and exploited in every country of the world, are with us.
It is for this very reason that, on this second anniversary of the Soviet power, despite hunger and cold, despite all our tribulations, which have been caused by the imperialists' invasion of the Russian Soviet Republic, we are full of firm faith in the justice of our cause, of firm Faith in the inevitable victory of Soviet power all over the world.
(Soviet Power and the Status of Women)
Speaking of the status of women, I couldn't help but notice this small tidbit.
Men have authority over women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance – [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand. If you fear a breach between them then appoint an arbiter from his folks and an arbiter from her folks; if they desire reconciliation God will affect between them; indeed God is All-knowing All-aware (Al-Quran, An-Nisa, 34-35)
Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great.
Oh, but that's okay, because as one scholar put it, women can sue if "If the husband beats a wife without respecting the limits set down by the Qur'an and Hadith". What a relief!
Hmm, now that I think about it Mr. Tankie? This doesn't look that good. If you were really that concerned with women's liberation maybe you would start with your own religion, and the fact that countries that practice it have astronomically high rates of domestic abuse, instead of tiptoeing around your hypocritical beliefs which contradict each other in practically every way possible.
Sorry for the late reply man, but I have little time left before the upcoming exams and this will really take some time to go trough in its entirety. I'll edit my reply into this comment somewhere next week.
-Well no, history has proven that unlimited power leads to the creation of corruption, while checks and balances help prevent this. There's endless cases to show that.
-Well that's untrue. In democracies, every voice is equal, and there tends to be freedom of speech, so that these voices can express themselves. They can impose their will on the executive and legislative branches, and thus through that exercise their will on the economic system. In all attempts at Communism, no such ability exists, and instead power it taken by those who claim to be the redistributers of wealth, and that leads to corruption.
-OK, social mobility doesn't matter in a meritocracy, because... oh, you don't have a reason, other than "Because people will still be poor!" Nice one, bud.
-You constantly compare things to Fascism, but that's not an argument. Communist states are far closer to Fascist ones than Social democracies are to either.
-It wasn't, actually, you listed sources without understanding them, without defending how such criticisms wouldn't be valid of an attempt to create a Communist state.
-Ah, stop licking books and read a book. Don't do that, as as a great man once said, "To read too many books is harmful."
No it wasn't. It was a dictatorship of the party leaders. That's why they lived great lifestyles while the proletariat languished. That's why Stalin wasn't missing many meals while his people starved.
I like how quickly Fazz's ideology falls apart. "The workers should rise up and lead the country! But not all of them, the worker's too stupid to lead his country, we'll lead it for him". Communism, folks.
Oh, you're asking? It means that they were a corrupt group in power. Ideally, a better enforced, more democratic system would've been put in place, where it wasn't just a corrupt circle in power, but a more robust system with checks and balances, like the ones that exist in many capitalist societies. That'd be far better than your "The workers will lead! Well, not really, I'll do it, but fuck it, workers!"
No it wasn't. In the USSR, it was the leaders of the Communist party whose interests were imposed. That's why they lived in luxury while people starved, this isn't hard to understand. They used terror and authoritarianism in their dictatorship to rule over the peasants, which in a capitalist, democratic society, there's at least a chance to avoid that.
Good to know. "Sorry your dad languished under my awful system, but fuck you, the workers need to rule! Well, not the workers, but the Communist leaders! The workers aren't smart enough, we'll tell them who leads them!"
Fascinating, Wizzy's came to this stupid ideology through unknown means, but is smart enough to reject the fuck-up's of Stalin and the USSR. Interestingly enough, at the time, the Communists across the globe were actually the loudest voice in criticizing Stalin's brutality while others looked the over way, which is incredibly commendable. Not you though, you don't give a fuck, you'll fight for Communism no matter how many people suffer, so "The workers can lead themselves! Well, we'll lead them, but fuck it, we'll tell them they're the ones who are in charge!"
I heard the Soviet Union had a very low crime rate. We could learn something from that.
Autocracy and brutal punishment and enforcement in a police state? Nah, we couldn't.
You rock dude!
Can you then please name a few good reasons for communism and enlighten the rest of us?
Can you tell what branch of communism, or even socialism embodies your beliefs the best?
Can you tell why you would want to live in a communist society:
- during the great class struggle?
- during the dictatorship of the proletariat?
- during the sixth stage of society?
And can you then describe why you then wouldn't be a social democrat or something in that corner?
I can answer for you.
"I like tanks better than actual policies"
That the best answer tough. There is simply no arguing against the beautiful and shapely curved turrets of the Soviet tanks. That is until they used the uglier American design during their third generation.
The Soviets had the advantage over the Nazis in WWII, as the Russians actually bothered to equip their tanks with functional transmissions. Remarkable.
If I liked tanks more than policies, I would be as pro-American as you can get.
Nah, if you liked calling other countries shitholes and then bombing the shit out of brown people from the skies THEN you'd be pro-American.
They're shitholes because we bomb them, we bomb them because they're shitholes.
I'd suggest changing your allegiance to the Israeli state then. Their Merkava IV MBT is pretty dope.
But you wouldn't be running unarmed citizens over with them, and that would be a step in the right direction for ya. ;)
I'M ACTUALLY 14, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE! AND I'M 1.8 METERS TALL TOO!
Well that's because I was pretty clearly on the side of CYStia during the Great War with the furries. Also, I'd change my username to something better, but unfortunately that isn't possible.
Name 2 times in history where communism didn't lead to mass-murder, genocide, or economic failure.
Never. Humanity has never even established a Communist system.
North Korea is socialist? I thought they openly admit to being communist.
They were Marxist socialists. The meaning of socialism has changed throughout time, making it hard to understand... but it's referring to Marxism.
No, they're not Communist. They're trying to instill a Communist system.
No. You're wrong. Humanity has never managed to create a true Communist system. Please explain how these countries were Communist.
These countries call themselves Communist, but in reality are Socialist countries that are also horribly retarded and corrupt.
I feel I gave you a more accurate question.
Yeah, you did.
Humanity has also never been able to create a true democracy. The closest thing we have is Switzerland, I believe. Just like a true democracy is borderline impossible, so is a true communist state. What's your point?
How has there never been a true democracy?
I think he's referring to direct democracy. The Greeks (specifically the Athenians, I believe) had a direct democracy for a time but that eventually shifted to an oligarchy with democratic elements. If he does mean direct democracy, then I think he'd be right, but direct democracy isn't a great idea for obvious reasons.
Well, my point is that it is definitely possible to create a more pure version of Communism, because we have managed to create some very good forms of democracy.
But not a form of pure democracy because pure democracy would lead to mob rule. If the current forms of communism we've seen that have all ended in failure are not pure communism, I fail to see how moving to a stronger version of communism would be better.
I'll help adjust the question, name two times in history where a state actually trying to achieve Communism hasn't led to mass-murder, genocide or economic failure.
The Workers and their struggle is the most important thing to Communists, but the Workers are too stupid to actually lead so the Communists need to do it, and they're too stupid for their opinions to matter or their voices be heard, so the Communists don't really care.
I have to say, never. People just aren't smart enough to figure out how to get their shit together and establish a society. I mean, you can see in this thread, that most people that believe in Communism are too stupid to figure out how to make it work.
Well then, that would be Telltale's point, that Communism doesn't work.
Yeah, I suppose that's better ^
Fazz was the old Communist on the site.
I thought Fazz was a socialist.
'Socialist' and 'communist' are honestly interchangeable when describing a person or a party.
They are not interchangeable when describing a society.
No they're not. You admit they're different on a societal basis, so the idea that a person who advocated for one or the other being no different is silly.
no, assuming by “communist” we neglect anarchists, because anarchists are utopianists who dont believe in building socialism first, they are the same thing.
That sentence makes no sense. No one mentioned anarchists. A socialist is someone who wants socialism and a socialist society. A Communist is someone who wants communism and a communist society.
You know im right and youre just looking for argument, lmao.
What a silly thing to say. You understand that a Communist society is different from a Socialist one. Surely you understand that Communists want a Communist Society and Socialists want a Socialist society, and thus they want different things and clearly aren't the same.
I think maybe you're just upset, because both you personally are less intelligent than me and your ideology is a broken one that I've shown on many occasions to be useless. If you don't think so, I'll happily do it again, if you'd like, but since that tends to end with you looking silly as you don't really understand Communism, I doubt you'd like to, preferring instead to not listen and pretend to be right.
I'm still waiting for you two to discuss the differences between communism and socialism as I've yet to find a clear-cut answer despite my looking into it. Of course, I'm personally a capitalist, so maybe I'd see them as being different if I was a socialist/communist myself. Funny thing, I often hear communists say that socialism is roughly the same as communism yet the socialists beg to differ, and the capitalists typically agree that socialism and communism are the same.
Oh, are you? Oh, not a bother. A simple way to do it is that Communism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", while Socialism is "From each according to his ability, to each according to their contribution". In Communism, there's no government, no state, no classes, you all just work as best you can by your own free whim and everything's free, to put it incredibly simply.
In Socialism, you'd still get a wage and things would still cost, but the idea of getting money through anything but labour is gone, as the means of production are collectivized, and thus however productive you are as a laborer is how much your wages would be.
This is very simple, however, to a fault, so I'd advise you to look into more. In case you're wondering, Communism has never actually occurred, and is pretty much impossible to actually achieve.
Well, Socialism can also be defined by being capitalism, except utilities and healthcare are paid for by the government.
Well no, it couldn't be. That's not what socialism is. Socialism involves people's contributions being relative to what they receive, capitalism does not involve that. In Socialism, if you work harder and do more, you'll receive more back, while that's not necessarily true with Capitalism.
Really? Well, that makes sense.
And since we already know (thanks to Fazz) that Communism and Socialism are synonymous, this statement now reads:
Communism can also be defined as Capitalism, except utilities and healthcare are paid for by the government.
Well then, both Fazz and Steve are wrong.
No, I'm not. In what possible way do you find I'm wrong?
Fazz is clearly wrong, the man's a liar, a hypocrite and a coward. Best avoided, really, or mocked.
"Communism is the very definition of failure."- Liberty Prime
Liberty Prime got punked like a bitch by the Institute
Yeah but he rammed his fist up the Enclave's ass, kind of like what Steve did to Wizzycat.
The Enclave, who are working with the American president, who wants to bring back democracy and free-market capitalism. Who Liberty Prime destroyed.
Fuck.....shut up he's still badass lmao
I'll try to explain as to why I arrived at and began believing in the Communist ideology.
So, once upon a time, in school, we were going over economic structures and one of the three main ones was Communism. There was also Socialism and Capitalism. Capitalism seemed like a very bad idea for a government, because, me being a wee lad at the time, didn't know about any capitalist country other than the US. And the US is shit. So, I thought about socialism. It seemed all right, but there's no possible way that it could be implemented into society. Plus, all the times in history that Socialism has gone wrong, it's gone REALLY wrong. E.g. the Soviet Union, which was not a good system at its best. IF you guys want me to explain how the Soviet Union was socialist, I will, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Anyways, I arrived at the communist ideology. It seemed awesome. Equality, freedom, no such thing as corruption.
Later on in life, which was two years later, also last year, I realized. The Soviet Union claimed that it was COMMUNISM. I thought in horror, "How could this be? The USSR was hyperautism!"
I was also having an existential crisis at the time, so I decided that my purpose in life would be to devise a way that Communism could work with humanity. I actually came to a conclusion with this, which I would love to write about, but Social Studies class is almost over, so I have to put the computer away. And yes, I'll answer all your questions, except I do not have time right now.
Socialism hasn't always gone wrong. Look at Ireland and the Nordic countries, they're very socialist. Not entirely, of course, but they have strong socialist elements alongside a strong capitalist system kept in check through Keynesian economics. I'd recommend following that.
Communism doesn't inherently work. The redistributers of property will always turn corrupt, as what happened with every Communist case I can think of, be it Stalin, Mao or whoever. It's born of a breakdown of rule of law, and the labour theory it's founded on is blatantly false, as I've shown above.
It seems you understand your position is one born of some ignorance, seeing as your disliking of capitalism came from you only knowing the US. However, again, better systems exist. Start off with a government that would inherently get it's power from the people. Establish a voting scheme which, rather than giving each man a single vote, would give an instant run-off voting system. That way, everyone would vote, and you'd vote for your favorite candidate first, and if no candidate gets more than 50% of the votes, then it'll knock out the least popular candidate and count all the number 2 votes from his supporters. That way, you could vote for your third parties without fearing tossing away your vote, and you could actually develop a country with many parties. I mean, I have Sinn Fein, Green Party, Labour Party, Fianna Fail, Social Democrats, People before profit, Fianna Gail and more in my country because of that system.
Next, quite simply you'd need this government to be separated into branches so there's be checks and balances against corruption, and you'd have an effective machine controlled by the people, from which control over the economy could be used to quash unfair business practices, without suffering from the failures such as a lack of price mechanism or redistributers that come from a centrally-controlled economy. This ultimately displaces the need for Communism or any other radical ideology that is doomed to fail.
So yeah, that's my proposal, rather than Communism. Feel free to find flaws in that, it might not be solid, but so far, there's more than enough flaws in Communism for it to seem like a better alternative.
Fazz, I am proud and honored to be the first to offer you a free helicopter ride. I really am shocked that I was awarded this distinction, considering the long list of very qualified people who wanted this privilege for themselves. But no, I have been graced with this tremendous opportunity to give you the experience of a lifetime. Hop right in.
Hey Fazz, why did you take down your black panther story? Surely Victim's fascist comments didn't cause you to take it down did it?
Seems like you'd want to leave it up to at least influence more people with your commie ideas and subversive literature. (I gave it a 5)
Fuck that, I want to know why he has a massive song written by famed anti-Communist Ralph Chaplin as his profile. Like, even a basic understanding would show that Ralph Chaplin despised communism and the USSR, and worked hard to stop Communist influences in the labour unions.
You got questions to answer here comrade.
By large it was unfinished, for a story that was about the panthers there were three chapters and only 1 page actually dealt with the BPP lmao, the rest was mainly the relationship between huey/bobby and their experiences in the early black nationalist groups that existed before bpp.
maybe in the summer when im not so busy I'll finish it up, or maybe not, I'm not really as interested in the panthers like I was when the contest was a thing.
i didnt even know victim had commented on it until now, thanks for the laugh lol.
?Ralph Chaplin was ansyn, of course he didnt like the USSR lmao. a far cry from your lies that he was 'anti communist'.
cmon man youre usually better then this, normally you dont stoop so low as to totally fabricate things in your shitty b8.
also wobbly / union songs are the best american communist songs (and honestly some of the ONLY american communist songs lol).
Yes, he was, you absolute liar. He fought against Communist infiltration into the labour unions, he stood against leaders of the International Workers of the World fleeing to the Soviet Union, and he was let go from his position of editor of the Voice of the Federation for his anti-Communist views.
Chaplin hated Communism, and ironically, hated Communists using his songs against him. So yeah, try to avoid insulting your betters, you lying, hypocritical fuckwit, and if you do, make sure the evidence is on your side.
If I could quote Ralph Chaplin, from his piece "Why I wrote Solidarity Forever", the song that Fazz has on his profile, you'll see how retarded Fazz is.
"The name of this crusading organization was the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Historians using the hysterical newspaper headlines of the day as source material have depicted its stormy career in colors blacker than the hinges of hell. Erudite professors, quoting on another as “authorities”, label it as a conspiracy of alien arsonists and dynamiters, the purpose of which was to place all law-abiding citizens at the mercy of the mob. Infuriated by the IWW's libertarian singleness of purpose, the Communists have fought it more bitterly than they have at any time fought the hated bourgeoisie."
"Indicative of the final outcome is the fact that it was returning Russian-born IWW members who manned the Soviet Union's last barricade of freedom when Trotsky's janissaries liquidated the anti-Communist sailors of the Red fleet after their unsuccessful rebellion at Kronstadt. Many of those young men and women came from Chicago's West-Side close to the IWW headquarters, their rich voices singing what the Communists sneeringly referred to as the “Anarchists' Marching Song”. As for me, the thunderous rhythm was full of the revolutionary affirmation I tried to weave into the pattern of “Solidarity Forever”. Those voices still haunt me, coming as they did from the Russia of Turgenev, Tolstoi, Kropotkin, and Pasternak."
"As for the young author of “Solidarity Forever”, he had already seen too many mobs in action to relish the prospect of bloody revolution summed up in the hateful words of “La Carmignole”, which the Commies sang so boisterously in their halls and during the street demonstrations."
"Co-existence was destined to come later on, when the Commies had the world by the tail with a downhill pull and had developed the fine art of liquidation to a point where it was a cat-and-mouse routine to make the fun last longer."
Damn fucking straight. Don't fuck with Steve, kids.
>Infuriated by the IWW's libertarian singleness
Meh youre continuing the exaggerations. Nothing here strikes me as all that surprising considering he was a syndicalist, something ive already acknowledged. Ultimately nothing you've presented to me is anti communist. Anti authrotiarian communist sure, but again not surprising since he was wobbly affiliated.
In any case, holy shit get a fucking job bro. lmao.
Why would he let his labour be exploited for profit?
because if he doesnt, he'll become homeless, and then die.
As engels writes, Fine freedom, where the proletarian has no other choice than that of either accepting the conditions which the bourgeoisie offers him, or of starving, of freezing to death, of sleeping naked among the beasts of the forests!
But you're acting like refusing to participate in the immoral system somehow makes him inferior, or makes his ideas less valid . "Get a job, bro" is a reactionary dismissal
yeah good rebuttal. ultimately it was ironic.
Was it? I don't think you understand what ironic means there. Where's the irony in telling me to get a job on any level?
Edit: Oh hang on, is it that I'm part of the Proleteriat working to survive, while you're Bourgeoisie scum soaking up Daddy's hard-earned money while secretly hating yourself for being scum? My bad, I get it now, that was ironic.
"Exaggerations"? No, that's not what you said. You said "lies" and that I had to "fabricate" them, so instantly, you're already lying about your position and backpedalling, you pathetic fuck. The man says that the Communists fought his group more bitterly than they fought their actual enemy. He clearly despises the USSR, as you'll admit. He says he's seen too many mobs like the Communists, calling them hateful and boisterous. He says they had the fucking world in a downward pull, how much evidence do you need?
Not only that, but the man's actions in speaking out against Communism and stopping Communist infiltration to the labour unions more than prove he was anti-Communist, you absolute liar. At least have the balls to step up and say you were wrong about this single fucking thing rather than whining like the small spoilt child that you are.
I have a job. I also have a college career, I'm studying law. I also have a few hobbies, mainly writing, at which I'm one of the most prolific writers on the site. But no, good one on turning someone educating you into "Get a fucking job bro" when you've been proven wrong. Back to exploiting the proletariat, pig fucker.
bottom line is he was a libertarian of course he didnt like statists. that doesnt mean he was Joseph Mccarthy or something you liar and baiter
Oh, did I say he was Joseph McCarthy? Oh, I didn't, actually. More bullshit lies from you, but by now, everyone can see that. The man can say Communists are pulling the world downward, and you refuse to admit he was anti-Communist because you're too spoilt by your rich Bourgeoisie daddy to admit you're wrong.
You're a liar, a hypocrite and a coward, which thankfully, I've shown to, I dare say, every single person who reads this.
Was commending this really necessary?
Absolutely. It was my fucking trump card. To be told someone isn't something, and then to respond by showing quotes where they show they do in explaining the meaning of the fucking song Fazz has on his profile is a spectacular killing blow.
Stick to hyper-edgy stupidity to offend idiots, dark. Stay away from my victories.
Dark? You've never called me by my newer accounts until now. Or do you not know I'm Danaos?
On a side note, is anyone else having problems with the notifications?
Oh yeah, I forgot. Anyhow, fuck off back to your hole.
Now that's too bad.
Jesus fucking Christ, you people are fucking ridiculous about these goddamn comms sometimes. It's one goddamn point. It's not like it's making a big difference.
Besides, JJJ said to not give them out ironically. I never give them out ironically so its fine.
I don't care either way. I've just never seen anyone get commended for dismantling someone's entire argument in a single post. If anything, it adds more "flavor" to it.
But he really didnt dismantle anything...
its absolutely no secret anarchists dont like bolsheviks. I knew ralph chaplin was an ansyn, but still.
the problem with steves argument is that he frames this dislike to include ALL communists as he doesnt differentiate between “libertarian” and “authoritarian” communists.
being anti-bolshevik doesnt make you anti-COMMUNIST. Ralph chaplin was libertarian communist who did probably did great things as a wobbly for the labor movement, he just didnt want bolshevik influence in unions. At least, thats what everything steve has quoted and cited points to. of course steve realizes this and is just trying to bait.
but whatever, for people who dont realize this important thing, his argument looks nice and it appears to be cited, so applause for the great dismantling and great revelation that anarchists dont like authority!
No, I clearly dismantled it. You said he wasn't anti-Communist, I showed quotes where he talked about how terrible Communists were. He didn't specify, he said "Commies". The man sure as shit wasn't communist, as you said, he was an anarcho-syndicist. You said I was lying, than ran back to "exaggerating" and refused to be a man and apologize for your appalling lies and slander.
Ultimately, you're a child who is constantly proven wrong, but unwilling to learn. You run from arguments when you lose, or ignore them, like the fact that you profit off the exploitation of the workers, but you continue to do so, only promising to stop in a few years, possibly. You're a spoilt brat, nothing more. Crawl back to daddy and fuck off.
Fazz...it's not that serious. Calm down.
yeah youre right. i just feel like i didnt explain myself well.
Seeing as how enterpride, the only person who wasnt completely retarded in this thread and honestly a breath of fresh air, has presumably conceded or given up the argument, this thread is about done anyway lol.
Well so far we've learned that you're a liar, a slanderer, your profile quote is from a well known anti-Communist, and you had the balls to tell me to get a job while you sponge off the exploitation of the working man. I'm Proletariat and you're Bourgeoisie, and you have the balls to talk to me about Capitalism.
Thanks to that, and the fact I got to poke you for a while as you flayed about screaming, I'd call this thread a success to be remembered.
Anyhow, next contender, I'm pretty much finished with this one. I feel Wizzy was saying I'm wrong about something and Danaos is stupid as always, let's deal with them.
Deal with me? I've been pretty hands-off in this thread.
You said some stupid shit about slavery.
Yeah, wasn't being serious.
I doubt you ever are, really. But, it doesn't change the fact you whined about stupid shit, whether believing it or not. Pretending to care seems as stupid and unproductive as supporting it, without having the benefit of being honest that an actual pro-slaver would've had.
Sometimes I am, and you have a funny way of interpreting something as whining. Also, it's unlikely that a pro-slaver would be known for honesty. Unless you meant someone that's pro-slavery. Either way that's wishful thinking.
Well yeah, if you'd been genuinely pro-slavery, you'd be as stupid as you are, but more honest, so that'd be an improvement, which is a rarity.
Holding an idea you don't agree with down doesn't make someone stupid. You don't seem to grasp that in the slightest. I wonder if you're inane in real life.
You pretended to have a stupid idea you didn't actually believe. Wasting your time on that makes you very stupid.
That's like saying I'm stupid for making a joke about rape even though I'm not a rapist. You clearly understood that I wasn't being serious in that instance yet you treated it as such. Why waste your time addressing it in the first place? It's like your on a hunt for something to be up and arms about which is a waste of energy. Also, you don't decide what is and isn't a waste of my time.
But you are a rapist, so it's a moot point.
No, jokes serve a purpose. It's more like pretending to support rape even though you don't. When taking that into account, yeah, you seem like an idiot who wasted their time. Or, I guess, maybe your time has so little value you didn't waste it, I guess that could be true.
It's the same thing, Steve. You're only making a big deal out of it for the sake of argument. Thankfully you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't a waste of time or the value thereof. Your words don't match your actions either. If I deem something to be a waste of time I simply don't engage. You seem to go in the opposite direction.
No, it's not. Making jokes is humorous. Pretending to be something for no real reason is a waste of time and simply retarded. It's not hard.
Again, maybe your time doesn't have any value, and you're not wasting it. That's admittedly a possibility, but it hardly paints you in a better light.
It is humorous - to me. According to your logic, if someone makes a joke that no one but the one telling it finds funny, then it's not a joke. Maybe the joke wasn't intended for your amusement more than it was for mine. And of course my time has value. You may not see it that way but that doesn't concern me. If this is really a waste of time, why are you still engaging? You're being inconsistent.
What, pretending to have a viewpoint that you don't have was what you found humorous? Well then, if that's the case, your level of humor is so base that that alone is far shittier than even I thought of you.
"I support the 8th amendment! Actually, I didn't! Haha!" Jesus, you'd think as the profiles evolve, you'd get smarter, or better, or something, but nothing.
Oh, I'm still engaging because for some bizarre reason I enjoy winning arguments on the internet. It's entertaining.
I find it humorous that you're taking something so minor so seriously. You're escalating it to the point of absurdity and I'm enjoying watching you flail around to make something out of nothing. And yeah, I've seen comedians do things like that on occasion. Satire seems to go over your head entirely. What you think of me doesn't really matter. You're just some fat Irish kid with a chip on your shoulder. I think you're still engaging because you have poor impulse control and a short-temper. You're seeing this as an argument when this is just me talking.
It's always so remarkable to see how people react to these kind of things. So far, Fazz has shown he gets upset and hides, like a certain twat the Villains ran out of town recently, whilst people like you and Slashy try turn it into "Nah, I enjoy this! This is fun to me!". It's always interesting, given my reputation for hounding out these fights, that you're trying to take it into me being offended or having a chip on my shoulder or whatever, rather than enjoying mocking you as always. Personally, I always had a soft spot for Brennon's approach of being at least honest in his upsetness, rather than you and Slashy pretending to have a great time.
Do they? Do Comedians just blatantly state falsehoods in a manner that's not exaggeration or hyperbole, but on par to actual ideas they've had in the past? Because no, they don't.
And again, I enjoy the connection of "short temper" with you turning to calling me "some fat Irish kid". Is that supposed to show your amusement at this? The fact that you're having such a great time you're going with that? Nah, that's a lame response. Perhaps try something new. That could be fun. Or continue as you are, in your endless cycle of profiles that devolve slowly into... well, I suppose we'll find out. So, either one works, thinking about it.
I'm pretty indifferent towards this whole thing. That in mind, it is humorous that you're trying to make an argument out of nothing. I've shown neither a positive or negative attitude towards this chat, you interpreting it any other way is on you. As I said, this is just me talking. No persona is being used at the moment. Can't say I remember advocating for slavery, but yeah comedians tend to pretend they are something they're not. I forgot his name, but where was a guy pretending to be an AntiFa member so he could troll Fox News. According to you, he wasn't joking and is no better than an actual AntiFa member. That's absurd. That you broke into an angry rant just proves my point. You have a temper. And you are some fat Irish kid that likes to go online for the sake of starting petty arguments. You admitted this yourself. What you think of me is irrelevant because of that.
Ah, so you're going with the apathy approach. That's also been tried many a time. Some people are able to pull it off, like End, but you can't really try pull that off. Good try, though, I suppose it's a move away from the Slashy-level "I'm having fun!" bullshit, but it just raise the question why you're doing something you have no positive or negative feelings about, unless your time is literally worthless to justify that.
I never said he wasn't joking, nor did I say you weren't joking. I don't know about him, he might've actually been making a joke or taking the piss successfully out of them, but you just kind of presented a viewpoint that I reasonably dismissed. So yeah, you wasting your time on this makes you about as shitty if not more so than I previously thought you were.
But no, you're going to continue with the cyclical thing, which is fun either way, so that's going to be really fun. Still, it's really best to embrace the dive down the rabbit hole rather than try to pull off the apathetic thing. Leave that to people who can afford it.
I'm not going with any approach. Like I keep saying this is just me talking to you without playing a character. It kind of died when I ran out of Latin names to use. And boredom, mostly. It actually doesn't take much time to respond to you, believe it or not. You said it's not the same as a joke because it wasn't humorous, but you failed to realize that a joke doesn't have to be humorous to you to be a joke. So now you're just backpedaling. And you jumping into something you acknowledged as not being serious shows your lack of self control. I don't know how you expect to find success in the legal field if you're so easy to goad into things. With the amount of hate you have for the world I'm surprised you don't look in the mirror wondering why you don't just off yourself now.
I don't think there really ever is much more of a person behind the keyboard than the shit we see. It's just a fairly dull edgelord act on repeat and a contrarian need to disagree. There's not even much of a mask to slip, it's not like you pretend to be an ultra-conservative, you just kind of flip around saying stupid things, which if all you do on this site is saying stupid things and fucking off, yeah, it's fairly definitely a waste of time. I mean, you're fairly akin to Victim, pretty much on par, really, with the unending contrarian bit that gets old pretty fast.
Anyhow, for future reference, you should kind of try to refine your attacks against me into something more... usable. I mean, so far, we've had that I'm angry, that I'm hateful, that I'm a fat Irish kid, that I'm a filthy bisexual and... not really much else. It seems to be, given that I've made it known I quite enjoy internet fights that the anger and hateful thing are hardly insults. Fat is far too generic to be particularly hurtful, and it's such a playground insult it's laughable, while I don't see the purpose of including "Irish", given that I'm proud of that, same with the bisexuality. The suicide comment is a good one, I'll admit, and I've used it before, quite effectively against Phoenix, where I just told him he hated his life on the correct assumption that he was one of the many twats who did. However, my hatred is towards others, and I've certainly displayed enough narcissism to show that I think I'm the most worthy person of living there is. I'd suggest going with a more Columbine-esque route, or dropping the point entirely.
In future, I'd advise going for more solid attack points. Insulting my writing tends to be quite effective, Sent did that a bit and managed to earn my ire, or you could try break ground with the whole silent response thing Fazz does where he runs away as soon as he catches my interest. That certainly annoys me. There's endless more points you can go in on to try get the edge back, but on a site like CYS, you're going to have to work a lot harder than suicide if you're going to have anything to do here. Maybe find a shtick as well, so you're actually pretending to be someone who may or may not exist, like a Muslim Communist, rather than be like Victim and just disagree with obvious statements. Your choice, though, best of luck.
It's rich that you're saying that I have a need to disagree when your existence on this site has been deliberately starting arguments over stupid stuff. I don't know or care who or what Victim is. I don't see it as an insult as much as it is an accurate assessment of who are based on what I've seen. Then moment I call you that you go on an angry rant and start posting walls of text. You're not treating it like it's nothing. I don't why why you're running through all this 'advice' about how I should insult you in the future. You aren't getting that I find you to be beneath contempt. The internet is probably the only outlet where you can pretend to be hot shit and that's perfectly fine by me. You do you. Also, I haven't, nor will I bother to, read any of your stories because that would be an actual waste of my time.
Well no, I start fights, but I have general principles I stand by. I agree with what I argue for. You don't. That's why you're contrarian, and I'm just argumentative.
Again, you're skipping all of the advice, and instead going with "beneath contempt". No, you're still trying for the Endmaster "I don't give a fuck!" path that doesn't work. You're going to need to try something else. Going with "I don't care" only ever works if you're just occasionally popping in to troll and post USSR music like End, not when you're here the entire time, continuing to act like you don't care while spending all this time talking. The "You only matter on the internet!" is a good one, to be fair, that's a common insult for internet people. It doesn't particularly work because it's wrong, but you're taking my advice and trying something new, and that's progress. Keep trying, bud.
Basically, all you're telling me here is that I've earned the ire of some contrarian non-person. That wasn't very good. I already explained how to best go for my throat, and you threw it away. You didn't even have to read my stories, just say they were bad, and you couldn't even do that. You're a bad troll, and you've never really been a person on here, so I question your very existence.
You're arguing against absolutely nothing at this point. I'm not even trying to insult you or troll. And you've earned nothing. I'm indifferent towards you, Steve. I don't see why I'd waste energy hating someone I don't even know.
See, you've gone downhill entirely, now. Rather than toss aside the apathy bullshit to focus on insults, you're sticking to the "I'm indifferent, I'm not trying to insult you when I insult you, I'm just stating facts". I explained, you've dedicated far too much time to this whole bit of the thread to play the apathy card. You're going to have to move on to something better.
Go on, try again. I've given you the material you need to use, you can do it, bud.
You've probably dedicated significantly more time than I have seeing as to the walls of text you keep leaving. I told you responding to you doesn't take long. And I'll keep responding if I feel like it. In the post I was referring to, I wasn't insulting you. It's not my fault that you're so sensitive.
Nah, I type really fast, that's why I write so much. But you've gone back to trying, that's good, but you've gone with "You're too sensitive"? No, that doesn't work. I've been on this site far too much to be known as sensitive. Stop playing the "I don't even care!" card, stop whining and focus on the insults, man, come on.
There are no insults. You're reading too much into this.
And you're doubling down on the apathy. That doesn't work when you keep responding, idiot. Come on, try again, I believe in you. I feel like a supporter at the special Olympics hoping one of the down syndrome cunts makes it past the finish line eventually.
The Hammer, The Eagle and the Pig. It was actually pretty cool
Reminded me a bit of the Metro series.
yes but i guess it just so happens that being a controversial minority (muslim communist) leads to a lot of questions, lies and debate that i get myself involved in.
i dont know how getting into debates over religion or political theory is pushing my politics when everyone here does it.
in the summer ill try to publish something.
I'd say it's your habit of lying, slandering and refusing to admit when you're wrong over the simplest of things, if I had to say so myself.
To answer your question: yes. When he first joined he wasn't always making everything political. I think the first time he hinted towards his political views and Muslimism was when I suggested we execute the Syrian refugees (or something edgy). That's just when he was a Muslim lover, though. I don't know when he went all commie on us.
Actually his funniest post was him going on about how in his home country LGBT folks would get killed and such and his post made Morgan sad and angry at the world. Lol.
Oh yeah! I remember that. Good times those were. It's kind of comical when you look at Fazz's history. From the mysterious story reviewer to doing a complete 180 and turning into what he is now.
i blame morgan, she made that “letter in a bottle game” specifically addressed to me. if it werent for that i probably wouldn’t have stayed on this site for as long as i have.
Maybe it's just me, but claiming to be a Muslim Communist seems... contradictory. Communism defines religion as the opium of the masses. Am I missing something?
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."
You’re not missing anything, I completely agree with karl marx about that.
Yet he continues to follow religion. What a fucking genius.
I was going to point that out, but then I realized it would be a fool's errand and abandoned the idea.
And now for an intermission.
End - you post an intermission song and then heated arguments / debates continue in the thread above the intermission.
This has got to be one of the most amusing threads ever.
Eh, it's okay, but it's no Bantastic Thread.
That was a true victory. This is just a brief skirmish against the Redtard menace.
Man: I came here for a good argument.
Mr. Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: It can be.
Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
Mr. Vibrating: No it isn't.
Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
Mr. Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
Mr. Vibrating: Yes it is!
Man: No it isn't!
Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
Special thanks to Monty Python.
So, is Swift a commie? I'm tired, let's skip to the end.
Cuba has no Internet.
It's just the left trying to spread their influence onto other websites. Ignore it.