Search results

I've actually argued with fascists who said that and I was perfectly willing to concede that historically existent forms of so-called fascism might not be real fascism as it had been theorized and just argue against it without trying to do this retarded guilt-by-fake-association game, or pissing...

See dude? It totally was. Because he nakedly asserted that it was. The END. You know it's a communist tract because it was written by a communist and you know he was a communist because he wrote a communist tract. lulz

That's unfortunate.

.

Yeah dude, Mao was a communist because he was a communist author. And we know he was a communist author because he was a communist. Got it.

My argument has nothing to do with conditions. It has to do with what the necessary conditions are to taxonomize an economic system as socialist in the first place. The hand you should have played was the socialist policies ofChinacausing all the problems. Of course, that wouldn't make sense...

You don't know that. This just bald assertion. The fact of the matter is, for the examples I've given, the societies did better economically than others in the region. It's just asinine to flatly assert that these systems are doomed to failure. You have no evidence for that beyond your...

Yeah, Dumar you stupid bastard. Maoism is communism because mao was a communist. And how do we know Mao was a communist? Because Maoism is communism. Duh. That's introductory logic.

Yeah, Dumar you stupid bastard. Maoism is communism because mao was a communist. And how do we know Mao was a communist? Because Maoism is communism. Duh. That's introductory logic. . Saying they weren't Communist because they didn't fit your narrow, modernized, white washed, sugar...

No one cares about your religious beliefs.

Why can they be? Come on, follow it through. So why isn't that happening?

China and the USSR weren't communist. The real conclusion of your argument is that (actual) communism can't work in small states because otherwise it will be crushed militarily. But of course, whether or not that's true is entirely dependent on factors that are wholly extrinsic to communism as...

Jesus Christ dude. It would only be special pleading if he were extending courtesies to communism that he weren't to capitalism. But of course, capitalism doesn't have any intentionality (because its theory arose in a descriptive rather than prescriptive manner) and so, once again the two...

They didn't stay out. Where did you get that idea?

Well that's retarded because Catalonia was crushed militarily IN SPITE of the fact that it had higher war productivity than the rest of Spain. The only reason it was crushed militarily was because it was small. So it's not at all "a pretty strong argument." It's an idiotic argument.

While we're spaming wiki links: Left-wing uprisings against the Bolsheviks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, it "failed" because despite producing vastly more economic output than the rest of Spain, it was eventually crushed by the combined weight of Soviet and fascist military pressure. What a fucking failure of economic system to not be able to deal with any and all military threats the way...

Jesus. He does that shit to you too, huh? I thought it might just be a deliberate attempt to troll, but now I'm really thinking he's just dyslexic or something. His brain just shuts off halfway through sentences. Bro, I don't know if you've heard but all socialism is Stalinism.

lol Seriously dude. Please go look up what special pleading means. The claim that two different things are different isn't special pleading. That's retarded.

I love how you didn't pay any attention whatsoever to catalonia. That's really the opposite of what I expected given that that was the video.

That might be impressive (not really) if you showed any ability to use (lulz) introductory logic in practice.

lolwut

lol

They were "shown" to be that by someone who doesn't have any grasp of what logical fallacies are or how they work.

Except that I've given my reasons and you have no response other than your asinine incredulity. But here's the thing: I don't give a shit about your incredulity because I'm much MUCH smarter than you. A reaction of "pfffft" from morons doesn't actually mean anything.

Uh huh.

There is no winning with someone who will say literally anything. That is a false proposition. And you? You're still mad about yesterday, so you'll just use this as an opportunity to troll the shit out of me because you don't actually have any real interest in the debate.

Careful bro, that image is a little borderline. We wouldn't want you to fall under suspicion of your ownsolution.

No I'm not interested in trying to argue with intellectually dishonest people anymore. After tonight, hodj will be free to continue blathering about things he doesn't understand without rejoinder. I'm sure he'll declare victory (again) and you'll be right there to slurp up after he's done.

lol You know that Dumar and I don't actually agree about Marxism, right?

You're already there.

Right, and then when I say that such a system would have to be willing to engage in as much bloodshed as it takes to defend themselves, your dumbdumb response was to call me bloodthirsty. I'm talking to people who aren't intellectually honest. There's nothing you won't say, no matter how...

If that were true, you'd prove it (it's just a matter of quoting yourself). You won't, because you've got nothing. Political marxism (as defined by your link) is a substrain of marxism. It even says so on the page, dipshit. 1. No academic with any degree of familiarity with socialism would use...

Here you go, Araysar. Another shining example of the kind of thinker that accepts the "if it can't survive militarily, therefore it's a problem with the system internally" argument. You're in great company!

lol Uh huh. Makhno was totally a Marxist. Hodj said so.

Reading and comprehending aren't the same thing.

Shame? You're confused, son. I know reading isn't really your thing, but you might want to try it here.

To be fair, that goes for pretty much everyone.

That's what I thought. You've gotnothing. Sure. I wasn't even aware of the existence that particular substrain of marxism. Feel free to replace political marxism (where I used it) with vanguardism (there's more elements to marx's political philosophy, but that's the really relevant component...

Awww, what's the matter Zyyz? Feeling left out? Don't worry. Hodj hasn't actually been making any real argument either.