Search results

Where? Come on dipshit, link the post and quote the segment. Marx was a Marxist. He had a socialist critique of capitalism combined with a right-wing approach to dealing with it that left in place all the components of capitalism he despised and he (like most right-wingers) did everything in...

lol Sure you did, little buddy. Sure you did.

Yeah, you're right there not bothering to defend your asinine conviction that political marxism is a necessary outcome of a socialist critique of capitalism (a conviction held in spite of the presence of real-world counter-examples). Good job being there, bro.

lol God damn you, Araysar. I already crowned you king of the trolls. What else do you want?

lol This is how you know when hodj has given up. He stops any attempt actually trying to defend his dipshit "argument" and just starts declaring victory. This is how he deals with the butthurt of not being able to actually defend his position.

No retard. I said that the words "...operate from the Marxist dialectic..." were gibberish. Because they are.

They're not more accurate, even within the framework you're appealing to. Not at all. No, retard. What I want is for you to constrain your criticisms of socialism to actually socialist societies. lol What the fuck are you talking about? PLEASE spend some more time reading about what "special...

Yeah bro, copy-pasted text that doesn't actually make your argument = YOU JUST NUKED THEM COMMIES INTO OBLIVION. Got it.

He's not even right about the facts of the matter. He just claimed that the anarchists in catalonia were crushed by the fascists. Like...I knew this shit would happen. I knew I'd be talking to people without even the most basic grasp of the facts.

Because I'm talking to an idiot that insists on using words he doesn't understand and repeating himself long after his asinine points have been obliterated.

Seriously bro, are you retarded? None of what you've just copy-pasta'ed agrees with the point you're trying to make. It says the opposite. And now you're just repeating yourself even though I've already shown why that's a completely fucking stupid thing to say.

No it doesn't. My argument relies on workers having control over the means of production being necessary for any sane classification of socialism. That's it. Things which move in that direction make the society more socialist, and things that move away from the direction (like putting control...

I think the fact that people aren't always altruistic is a good reason not to protect (like with the police) the ability of the least altruistic to maintain their power over others.

lol Sure you don't, Brometheus.

If I had a time machine, I could go live with a family in anarchist catalonia...which would actually qualify.

At least you learned something.

This is literally gibberish. Lots of socialists have written books on socialism and what it means. There's no such thing as "the book." That's retarded. And putting the means of production into the hands of a tiny group of political elites is not that. In fact, it's the opposite of that.

Look bro, I'm sorry I made you look all ridiculous and irrational about teh gayz. You've successfully trolled me into talking with dipshits like hodj who will say literally anything because they don't have even the slightest grasp of what they're talking about. Good job. You are king of the...

You don't know what special pleading means. No, retard. Go do some reading:Dialectic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Dialectic (also dialectics and the dialectical method) is a method of argument " Stop using words you don't understand.

That's some really awesome reading comprehension you've got there. Oh...right...fuck, I should be putting my ideas in video format.

Marx's approach to philosophy is not equivalent to his political theories. There's nothing about a Marxist dialectic that inherently leads to "we have to have a vanguard party that controls the economy because the masses can't be trusted to do it." None of what you're quoting here makes...

Pop quiz, retard: define special pleading and explain how it applies in the case you just gave. Seriously, why do you keep using words you don't understand?

Ok. Well then you're confused and misinformed about what socialism is.

Their RHETORIC was about giving control to workers. That didn't actually happen (because, again, nationalization and socialization aren't even remotely equivalent). Actual revolution that puts control over the means of work in the hands of workers or fake revolution that exchanges one oligarchy...

These appeals to authority are idiotic. "Marx said it, therefore following it is socialism even if the system is produces doesn't actually get rid of the capital relations that Marx himself attacked as the very impetus for socialism in the first place." That is fucking stupid. It's not the...

So now you're using words you clearly don't understand. Marx's economic theories != Marx's political theories != Marx's particular philosophical approach. You're taking several different ideas and trying to conflate them so that you can ignore that "meet the new boss same as the old boss...

Well 1. That's true because time works in a particular direction. 2. What Marx said is immaterial. I realize that you're retarded so this won't mean anything to you, but Marx had economic and political theories and those weren't the same thing at all.

I'm talking about self-defense. I'm saying people need to defend themselves against non-socialist "socialists" in addition to the capitalists because both the non-socialist "socialists" and the capitalists will absolutely slaughter everyone until there's no one left to present the threat of a...

Alienating people even further from their work isn't communist, no matter how much the person responsible claims to be a communist. If I claimed to be a capitalist, but I was dead set against markets you'd tell me I wasn't a capitalist (and you'd be right). If I then said "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN"...

Everything was controlled by the state. Not by the workers. I'm sure, under the conditions of decades of agreement by American and Soviet propaganda on the issue, it probably did seem like socialism. It wasn't. It never was.

It's not the "end game" though. That's nonsense. There's no reason to believe you have to hand over all the economic power to some dick who claims to be taking it in everyone's best interest to reach a point where workers directly control their own means of work.

Yeah that's not what I pointed out at all, retard.

The price is set under conditions of competition (presumably, at least). Now if you have monopolies (or effective monopolies) providing goods that people can't do without without severe sacrifices to quality of life, then you're looking at an exploitative state of affairs (and one that wouldn't...

No you didn't. Marx isn't equivalent to socialism. His critque of capitalism was fundamentally correct, but his proposed political remedies leave capitalist power relations in place. This was a problem that was pointed out in his time and he had the people who brought it up evicted from the...

In a society which lacks a "top" in the first place, the person "rising" would be (necessarily) the aggressor. The advocacy is for self-defense.

wat

No they aren't. Not at all. Nationalization is not some necessary first step (which of course never leads to the second step). I realize that you haven't actually done any reading but this constant refrain of MARX = SOCIALISM is ridiculous. There were plenty of other socialist contemporaries...

The soviet union wasn't socialist.

Really my argument is that communism can't work until we're willing to slit the throats of those who would inflict capitalism (even if those people call themselves "communists").

The instances I pointed out weren't really nations in any traditional sense.