This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Meh T.Z.E
241
« on: April 12, 2016, 12:02:34 PM »
Dirt does not taste like gummy bears.
Yeah but you live in Australia where everything is shit.
Are you saying that Australia is made of shit, and therefor, not gummy bears?
242
« on: April 11, 2016, 11:09:58 PM »
Bungle is pretty neat, so I have about a thousand posts there, maybe. This place I'm trying to get a grip onto: I need to adapt.
243
« on: April 11, 2016, 09:07:15 PM »
Our country is saved
244
« on: April 11, 2016, 09:06:16 PM »
Jokes on me, I watched the whole thing
245
« on: April 11, 2016, 01:55:28 PM »
But, you only have one really shitty superpower.
Example: The ability to see 20:5 vision
What is your power?
246
« on: April 11, 2016, 01:48:22 PM »
Probably start buying
247
« on: April 11, 2016, 01:25:45 PM »
Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period.
Yes, it is.
It's just that Bernie isn't one.
I understand this, I just didn't fully phrase it. I meant: Democratic Socialism as it is being used in the modern day and in this thread is not real Democratic Socialism and not real Socialism.
248
« on: April 11, 2016, 01:23:36 PM »
Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period. I said new or seperate, not a wannabe add-on. Well, I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated yourself to be an authority on the subject. Neither have I, but until I'm soundly proven wrong (and not just by saying "NUH-UH"), democratic socialism will remain, in my eyes, a reasonably fungible alternative to socialism under our current political climate. You can keep crying no true Scotsman, but it won't make you right.
Puff my chest out? *incredulity* You're so clearly affronted by my refusal to acknowledge your self-appointed authority on the subject, and I think it's funny. You're trying so hard to assert your dominance over me, when you have none. You have appeals to authority, and appeals to authenticity. This is not substantive.
"no True Scotsman" Are you implying that I'm wrong because of this? Assert Dominance? *incredulity*
249
« on: April 11, 2016, 12:37:24 PM »
There's a difference between what Marx believes about socialism and what he has defined as socialism. A lot of what he said is debatable, but some of it you can't argue without straying away from socialism into a new or separate economic theory. Like democratic socialism.
Why wouldn't I be 'blustering and spitting venom', it's only self-defence: someone calls you an idiot, you have the option to call em an idiot right back, so there's nothing wrong with it. However, if you're the first, you have absolutely no right to complain. Who says I'm complaining? I'm just explaining to you why your posts are such a chore to read through, because you're trying so hard to impotently puff your chest out at me. You're boring.
Democratic Socialism isn't socialism period. I said new or seperate, not a wannabe add-on. Puff my chest out? *incredulity* Boring? I suppose when you can't offer any serious rebuttal you could consider it boring to try to rehash your ill-conceived arguments. You've basically resigned yourself to a loss by now, considering you've offered nothing new.
250
« on: April 11, 2016, 05:51:37 AM »
Like, Lenin and Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Stalin just put anyone in gulags who so much as looked at him funny
Now, I'm no serious tankie, but even I know that was just western propaganda.
251
« on: April 10, 2016, 11:09:50 PM »
Simple, remove your balls
252
« on: April 10, 2016, 08:27:59 PM »
ITT: public works are somehow inherently Socialist now.
Uh, yeah. If everyone benefits/can benefit from it, and it's paid for by the government.
Huh, maybe the Nazi's weren't so fascist what with the Reichsautobahn. Good to hear they had some redeeming qualities about them.
Don'tcha know? The Nazis said they were socialist, so they must have their own ideas about socialism and we should recognize them as legitimate.
253
« on: April 10, 2016, 08:21:56 PM »
Let me see if I can point out where I said that Marx was the end-all be-all to any argument about socialism. Oh, so he's not?
Then there's no issue with having my own interpretation of socialism, or what counts as socialist policy. Thanks.
Obviously Marx has made a lot of the central tenets of socialism, and many of these are unable to be debated as not socialism: such as the abolition of private property. Others, however, are obviously debatable, like his beliefs regarding the family in regards to socialism. There's a difference between what Marx believes about socialism and what he has defined as socialism. A lot of what he said is debatable, but some of it you can't argue without straying away from socialism into a new or separate economic theory. You can't just decide on your own what's socialism to you: everything must be reconciled with previous theory. Picking and choosing between parts of theory, the central tenets, that is, cannot be done within the bounds of the theory. just something I can't be bothered to respond to at all. The rest, I don't care about because that's legitimate, but as soon as you believe that you just can't be bothered, your arguments just don't matter. It's like giving up. You're still blustering and spitting venom because I called you an idiot for having a shitty and flawed conception of socialism, and as a result, your posts are a bit of a chore to read through. You repeat yourself a lot, you beleaguer points ad nauseum, and your language is ambiguous and vague. So forgive my lack of patience for your shit. Why wouldn't I be 'blustering and spitting venom', it's only self-defence: someone calls you an idiot, you have the option to call em an idiot right back, so there's nothing wrong with it. However, if you're the first, you have absolutely no right to complain. I repeat myself to get certain points through and sometimes add extra to it, as for the rest: I'm on my phone watching Fear the Walking Dead, so it only follows that parts of my post might be difficult to go back through and edit, but it's able to be read and understood no matter the trouble it might put you through to read it.
254
« on: April 10, 2016, 07:12:03 PM »
part of Marx's philosophy for socialism, explains material needs and how they are allocated as being a central tenet to the ideology, and that anything that benefits the capitalist class over the working class does not fit within socialism and cannot be a socialist whatever. Right, and if Marx says it, then there's no debate, right? There couldn't possibly be any other interpretations of socialist theory.
It should be obvious that Marx wasn't perfect, and any rational person who wishes to take on Marxian ideology would be wise to take a revisionist approach to it. I'm sorry if that compromises your pristine definition of socialism too much, but not all socialists are fucking Marxists. Sorry.
Let me see if I can point out where I said that Marx was the end-all be-all to any argument about socialism. Or let's see where I used Marx not as an example, but as the literal god of all socialism and completely undebatable. I only used Marx as an example of relevancy, considering he is the creator of the most followed sect of socialist ideology and all socialist ideology after that came primarily based off of and respecting of Marx. Try and find another interpretation of socialist theory where it supports your argument, with this sect of socialism being respected by any other sect as legitimate and that particular view supporting your view legitimate. Obviously not all socialists are 'fucking Marxists", I never said that all socialists are Marxists. Don't try to infer any implications in what I am saying, if you hadn't inferred, you might have come up with a semi-respectable argument. Which, by the way, have you really given any? Like, at all? Maybe you should actually try and put up an argument for everything that I've been saying instead of just picking and choosing which parts of my argument you think you can make a rebuttal to. I see you quoting one part of my entire post and using it as my entire argument, like it's some sort of thesis statement that you can just undermine the premise to. I'm not making a singular argument here. Try and actually make a legitimate rebuttal for once.
255
« on: April 10, 2016, 06:41:34 PM »
you always forget to put this shit in relation to the economic system as a whole Probably because it isn't relevant to the question of "is this a socialist policy."
A socialist policy is a socialist policy.
It can only be 'socialist' if it was made to benefit the workers and not to benefit the capitalist class Says the fuck who?
The point is that it does benefit the working class. All of the things I mentioned help the working class.
Just because they happen to benefit the "capitalist class" as well, as an ulterior motive, doesn't make them inherently un-socialist--that's just an example of how capitalism corrupts everything. But they're still socialist by nature.
"A socialist policy is a socialist policy." How about instead of r-re-repeating yourself, you actually give a formidable non-circular non-semantics-based argument that recognizes what I said and looks at it in relation to whatever you've been trying to say at whatever given time. Saying that it isn't relevant to the question of whether it's a socialist policy is completely ignorant and fails to recognize the view of actual socialists in what they say their economic system does and doesn't allow for and what outside of their economic system can be described as socialist. It is completely relevant, considering dialectical materialism, part of Marx's philosophy for socialism, explains material needs and how they are allocated as being a central tenet to the ideology, and that anything that benefits the capitalist class over the working class does not fit within socialism and cannot be a socialist whatever. "Says the fuck who?" Are you really this absent-minded to believe that Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao (even Stalin), or any other socialist/communist theorist wouldn't have pointed out instantly to anyone that socialism is meant to benefit the working class and the working class only, and that the bourgeoisie, or capitalist class, should only be brought lower and lower by 'socialist' policies, otherwise those policies don't fit within the range of socialism? This is obvious stuff. This is socialism 101. This is the entry-level stuff that people go into communist theory think and come out hating, this isn't even remotely arguable. "socialist by nature" Socialism, by nature, combats capitalist ideology and destroys the bourgeoisie. Capitalism, by nature, combats communist ideology and hinders the proletariat. Anything that benefits the capitalist class is not socialist, by nature. That's all there is to it.
256
« on: April 10, 2016, 05:54:21 PM »
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...
Not true.
Stalin's policies were a logical extension of Lenin's. The first Red Terror literally happened under Lenin, after the first assassination attempt.
Stalin went corrupt with power, he wasn't an idealist like Lenin or Trotsky. He cared about himself, he didn't give a shit about Communism or the USSR.
I wouldn't say that, I've read most of his private writings and he's actually quite fond of them. Practice, however, is debatable.
257
« on: April 10, 2016, 05:36:16 PM »
Oh my god, you've actually been parroting this shit to other people, too?
When specific industries by individual capitalist, or any variation thereof, industries (railways and shit) becomes a trouble to the capitalist class, the state has to nationalize the industry so that it comes into ownership of the capitalist class as a whole. This makes it so that the control of the industry is less direct, fucko. Whenever liberals shits like you try to explain this shit and put it together in your limited brains, you always forget to put this shit in relation to the economic system as a whole and try to see why this stuff is nationalized.
It can only be 'socialist' if it was made to benefit the workers and not to benefit the capitalist class, but, guess what. Social security was made so that workers would stop dying from diseases and workplace accidents, something that was making all of their precious profit go away.
Public education was made so that there could be an educated workforce.
Fire and Police departments were made so that private property wouldn't burn down.
Everything has to be put into perspective with the current economic system as a whole, or else we'd obviously just call everything that ever was throughout history socialistic in some form or the other. Saying that something is a socialist policy implies that there is socialism put in place in some form or the other, whether it be by Dictatorship of the Proletariat or Vanguard Party, otherwise these systems just exist to benefit the capitalist class and are therefor not socialist, you huge raging fuckwitted mook-minded pile of uneducated shit.
258
« on: April 10, 2016, 05:08:00 PM »
I see you arguing Semantics, but not explaining your points.
Explain how it is socialist.
There, very clearly, let me say it again, verbatim, Verbatim: Explain how it is socialist.
259
« on: April 10, 2016, 05:03:14 PM »
There is no such thing as socialism that works under capitalism. If you're a myopic child who doesn't know how anything works, sure.
In America, we have a little thing called social security. It's actually one of the most beloved sanctions in the country.
And it's a socialist policy. It is inherently socialist by its nature.
BUT I THOGHT WE CUNLD'T HAVE SOCIALISM IN CAPITULAIM!?
Yes, you can. Get fucked over.
Obviously you can't read either, fuckass, or you would've seen that I already said that social policies are not the same as socialism. Explain how, at all, social security is socialism: not how it's like it, or anything half-assed, explain how it IS socialism.
260
« on: April 10, 2016, 04:52:48 PM »
I am an actual socialist and I can assure you that unless you believe in the abolition of private property, you are not a socialist: that's literally rule number one of socialism. Bernie Sanders is an embarrassment to socialism and his supporters are worse.
Advicating for social policies does not make you a socialist.
Yes, which is why he's a democratic socialist.
Do you want a cookie?
Are you stupid or something? Are you trying to rile up something by just being blatantly rude? There is no such thing as socialism that works under capitalism. The term Democratic Socialism is just plain disingenuous and an attention-getting alternative for Social Democrat. Socialists hold that socialism is predominately democratic, so what point are you trying to make here other than that you think you know how adjectives work?
261
« on: April 10, 2016, 04:47:32 PM »
Like, Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
Fixed...
Oops, don't know how I got that wrong.
262
« on: April 10, 2016, 04:42:28 PM »
Like, Lenin and Stalin literally put DemSocs, or the equivalent at the time, into Gulags.
263
« on: April 10, 2016, 04:40:19 PM »
I am an actual socialist and I can assure you that unless you believe in the abolition of private property, you are not a socialist: that's literally rule number one of socialism. Bernie Sanders is an embarrassment to socialism and his supporters are worse.
Advicating for social policies does not make you a socialist.
264
« on: April 08, 2016, 11:54:40 PM »
Posting a legitimate reply in this thread is a total trap and I'm disappointed people fell for it.
265
« on: April 08, 2016, 07:36:15 AM »
Dance? Of course.
But if I sing, my voice won't be the only thing breaking up that day.
266
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:50:25 AM »
Reminder that polyamory is for inferior cultures (like Africa).
"big socialist governments" I'll fight I'll the libertarians, with just my feet
267
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:44:48 AM »
Crushing bottles on your head just isn't the same
268
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:43:54 AM »
it was a JEST
JEEZ
269
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:41:43 AM »
If you have less than two, you're a dirty nuclear and you will die before winter MAJOR SPOILER: I have 10B Billion and counting. EXTREME SPOILER: You have less. 
270
« on: April 08, 2016, 12:32:21 AM »
Lots of American lives were lost
|
Show Posts