Search results

I think it's time to employ the methods of my own signature.

NOAOOAOOO WAAAIIIIIIIII MY MINDDDDDDDDD

lol You still don't know what capital relations are. That's adorable.

ice burn.gif

For Marxism. But this is just more trolling on your part.

No retard, try to keep up. I was talking about your proposed socialist criticisms of capitalism. Jesus you're thick. Ok. That's not what capital relations are. If you don't know what the terms I'm using mean, you should ask rather than wasting hours of my time. Right. You can classify things...

lol Tell me more of this science behind the idea of the singularity. If you can get Kurzweil's dick out of your mouth long enough that is.

Well I'm not the one appealing to Marx as the cannonical socialist. Really if anyone deserves that honor (and really no one does) I think it easily goes to Bakunin.

Dude. Listen to me very carefully. Even their intentions fail by the standard I propose.

Well Dumar and I happen to disagree about that (sort of).

Gulags, no. Slaughtering on the streets, no. Letting them starve to death, yes. You've conflated things that can clearly be traced to necessary conditions of capitalism with things that have nothing to do with the idea. You know how you tell the difference? I'll give you a clue. It doesn't...

lol This really made me laugh.

lol uh huh Yeah, yeah, dipshit. Every criticism you mentions is like the most superficial bullshit ever. You have no grasp of what you're talking about. How is "the absence of capital relations is a necessary condition of socialism" ideologically sleder. Try to defend that shit you fucking...

1. The singularity is just a new age cult of bullshit. 2. I didn't say they were (lulz) "awesome places." I said that they were examples of an (actual) socialist society being implement and, I would argue, that for the time they were allowed to exist by the military powers surrounding them...

Where did he imply that? I'd love to have an intelligent debate.

I would love to have a debate about what the proper interpretation of socialism is. All I've gotten in response are a bunch of appeals to authority (and labels). I've given when I think a reasonable guideline based on my understanding of the fundamental claims of socialism. Like I was really...

Communism is when someone calls something communist. That's introductory logic.

You're literally so stupid you think an argument about the proper approach to taxonomy is has to do with intentions vs. results. I literally don't know what to say. What can men do against such reckless stupidity?

And you know it didn't contradict anything in that theory because the word Marxism is right there in the name.

I don't know man...it is in the name and I've heard it from a very reputable source that that's what really matters. I mean they DO call themselves democratic and I've heard they have DEMOCRATIC elections where (where the winners come in in a landslide). Sounds like they're a democracy to me, bro.

Yeah that's what I thought. You've got nothing. You do this every single time. As soon as we get into the particulars of political taxonomy and what an actual rational approach here is, you just run away with this weak ass dodge bullshit. You suck, bro.

Well you're completely making up shit at this point. I honestly can't tell if its deliberate or if I've just been wasting my time talking to someone that genuinely fucking stupid that he can't keep basic facts straight in his head. If it's the second, then yeah I'm a little upset, but mostly...

You're not understanding. The "communists" there were essentially soviet satellite forces. Those weren't the socialists.

The context was the personIwas talking to. You're not gonna be able to this little sleight of hand with me. I'm not the one who's retarded here. So in addition to being ignorant of the necessary conditions of socialism, you're also ignorant of what the actual socialist criticisms of capitalism...

Yeah cause it's not like you've been given any kind of principle to either accept or attack as incomplete. It's just flat assertions about who counts and who doesn't. It's done completely ad hoc. Good job, dipshit. Even if the "Marxist theory" they write directly contradicts Marx. Got it...

Yeah bro, the word communism was in there like at least a couple times.

Yeah it's definitely not, don't believe what labels Mao used. See if those labels actually fit based on the idea they represent.

Yes. It's super narrow to insist that the basic power relations of capitalism disqualify an economic system from being communist. That's the narrowest. If you're under the impression that there aren't tons and tons of stupid scholars out there, I have some bad news for you.

You know it was socialism too because it's right there in the name.

You are conflating the people I'm talking about with the people that crushed them militarily. It's so wrong it's unbelievable.

Except in the real world you're talking about someone who is actually a pool boy passing himself off as an engineer to dipshits like you who think that merely accepting his claims that his job is in engineering is sufficient. If you weren't a fucking idiot, you could try looking at what the...

NO RETARD. I SAID MARX DIDN'T DEFINE SOCIALISM. ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY FUCK UP THIS BADLY? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Yeah dude. The soviets were one of the groups the socialists were fighting against. I know that doesn't make sense to you, but just try:Revolutionary Catalonia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Please.

Yeah I already know you wouldn't engage in an honest argument. No. That wasn't what they said or what I said they said. JESUS your reading comprehension sucks. What the fuck is wrong with your brain? Except that capitalists can't point to features which both violate the constraints of...

Well obviously the only thing that matters is that they call themselves a communistno matter what they actually believe.

You know it was communist thought because he was a communist and you know he was a communist because he wrote massive tracts on communist thought. That's introductory logic. You know it's communist theory because it was written by communists and you know it was written by communists because...

Whatever dude. Pol Pot killed a bunch of people and he called himself a socialist. That's all I need to know about socialism.

Exactly. You know they were communist too because uh...well you said so. You know they were Marxists because they were operating from a Marxist framework and you know they were operating from a Marxist framework because they were Marxists. That's introductory logic.

There were plenty of people with other desires. That's a weird one to pair with the external threat thing. It's understandable since I think even you can see the weakness of attacking extrinsic (and wholly circumstantial) factors of the particular examples given but still weird (and false).

I can confidently assert that these two examples are sufficient to show economic feasibility. Like I told hodj, if it had been 30 years instead of 3, you'd just be talking about how they were agricultural societies and we're not anymore. There's no actual winning with people that are...