How did you become a socialist? - Page 12 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14982478
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, Well if you try to annoy conservatives, then they will go against socialism even more because they would dislike how you are around them personally. First impressions can be more convincing than you think. And I am not an anarchist, YOU are. You just don't know it :lol:



You *are* funny -- or at least you're *trying* to be, which, in your case, will have to do.

In your egomania you keep thinking that socialists have to "convince" others of the rottenness of capitalism, by being *nice* to them, apparently. What you're missing is that the task of revolution isn't a response to a vacuum-cleaner salesperson at the door, it's a matter of how the whole *world* works, and when capitalism goes into crisis (as it's doing now), you'll still have your opinions, but that's *all* you'll have. Those like the yellow vests, teachers, maquiladora workers, etc., are showing *today* what needs to happen to bring all this bullshit to a close, for the sake of workers control over social production.


SSDR wrote:
"No, not necessarily -- people may be doing what they *have* to, to 'survive', but may have in-mind something much better and more socially enlightened, which could be at-odds with how they have to live under current exploitative and oppressive capitalist social conditions. (In other words they're not class-conscious.)" Well the way one is personally doesn't have to be determined by what they have to do in order to survive. Middle class people and upper class people aren't always worrying about survival, unlike the majority of the working poor (hence most working poor people are leftists). And yes, non socialists are not socialists because they don't have the proper sense of reality. They believe what they were raised by (such as thinking that money buys love or a woman needs comfort from a masculine man to be truly happy. They were raised to think this which is why they have no sense of reality). But, there are various non socialist ideologies that all of whom lack real consciousness, from conservativism or liberalism, to fascism and Islamic extremism. They are not socialists, but they are different from each other. A dirty hippie smoker is not the same as a strict, fake, catholic Spainard who supports Franco. But they are both not socialists in this case.


SSDR wrote:
"So if you're so good with the *history* of it all, why are you so *dismissive* of the group and its actual, anti-fascist *politics*?" Because a lot of people mix socialism with the Antifa. Anyone nowadays who claims to be a socialist is accused of belonging to the Antifa. The Antifa also promote social decay, ghetto shit, and trash. I would not want to share services with some messed up druggies who act annoying asf.



Well, unfortunately, your obsession with *culture* / the superstructure trumps any political consciousness, so you end up with *this* lifestylist mess. The term I developed for this / you is 'cultural roadkill', meaning that you're focusing on the wrong thing, the culture instead of the politics, and so you wind up being summarily dismissive, and incorrectly so.


SSDR wrote:
"Because I *don't want to*, not to you." Aww someone doesn't trust me? Well I guess you don't have any socialists in your background (I can sort of tell, unless if you're lying). You come from a middle class background?



Look -- I'm here for the politics, not for hugs 'n' cookies. I don't *like* you, so I'm not going to *cooperate* with you. Got it?


SSDR wrote:
"You make it sound like the term 'criminal' is absolute, uncontroversial, and fixed in meaning. Laws *change*, like alcohol prohibition -- it's a *political* thing, something that you're not grasping, ironically." Yes a criminal in a socialist society would not be the same as a criminal in a capitalist society. Merchants, drug lords, and prostitutes would be criminals in a socialist society, but not in a capitalist society. Prostitution is slavery. Merchants are scammers. And drug lords buy and sell like capitalist pigs.



As usual, you're showing that you don't even *understand* socialism -- it's not that any of these activities should not be done -- as for your moralistic reasons -- but rather that the *market system* would be obviated under socialism, meaning that merchants would no longer exist due to the post-capitalist economics of mass planning, free-access, and direct-distribution, drug lords would not control any portion of black-market markets because there would *be* no markets, and prostitutes could just be voluntary, for-free (liberated) sex workers, if they like.


SSDR wrote:
"Socially, sure I'm 'progressive' within the current context of capitalist social norms, but ultimately, *politically*, these social norms need to be under the control of *workers*, as with workers tribunals." Yes this is mostly true. This proves that homosexuality and LGBTQ rights have nothing to do with socialism, since in a workers' ran socialist society, the workers would determine if LGBTQ is acceptable or not.



If you like, or, LGBTQ would just *happen* as a part of civil society, without the government-legal-status thing even being necessary *at all*.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Wow -- no wonder I call you a fascist. Where's the *socialist* ethos in your politics? The one point that you focus-on and repeat the most is this 'criminalization' and punishment aspect.



SSDR wrote:
So if humans need to work, and if one doesn't work, yet they have the ability to DOESN'T make them bad? I guess me knowing that someone is bad because they slack and cause social decay makes me a fascist? Shit talk to your wife lol.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're blithely ignoring the *constructive* dynamic of *mass industrial machinery* -- if industrial agriculture can be done under workers control, requiring agricultural work from only 2% of the population (or less, potentially), providing the world with enough food for life and living, then where's the problem?



SSDR wrote:
You would still need plumbers, HVAC technicians, truck drivers, factory workers, warehousers, delivery drivers, cooks, computer programmers, engineers, software designers, architects, computer maintenance, apartment maintenance, painters, roofers, electricians, doctors, dentists, physicians, psychologists, nurses, concrete pavers, machinists, Teachers, professors, scientists, paramedics, firefighters, cooks, cafe servers, custodians, packagers, and even carpenters. Not everyone is so skilled that they can do all of the talents of the occupations I just listed. Everyone has different abilities, talents, skills, and desires. You can't build a home, maintain ALL of the parts of it (HVAC, plumbing, electrician, roofing, or even painting (some people don't like to paint)), build and maintain a car, and perform surgery on yourself when you need to. No human has the ability to do ALL of those things. There's way more than agriculture that's needed to maintain the survival of humanity.



Okay, that's better -- you were sounding like a conservative, or even fascist, with your dictatorial 'criminalization' and 'punishment' political line there.

With all such socially-necessary work roles being fulfilled by available-and-willing liberated labor, post-capitalism, humanity would realize *vast* economies-of-scale, due to industrial liberated-productivity, which was my original point regarding this section.


SSDR wrote:
"And why should *any* society trust *your* judgments? What if someone declared that their own chosen efforts at digging up *coal* and using it for fuel for themselves should be socially accepted as 'work'? Who *decides* what's 'work' and what's not?" Buying and selling shit, banking, and merchandising are not "work."



Okay, your political line is *improving* now.


SSDR wrote:
"Untrue, and this goes to show how inept and worthless you are with political issues, and policy." Woahh theree.


SSDR wrote:
"Who gets to use a factory, displacing other claimants, and why?" People who have the ability to work in factories (not everyone likes to work in factories) and those who are best suited for factory work.



Bad idea. Now you're getting *away* from the ethos of socialism / communism, which *should* be that people are so informed, knowledgeable, and capable of *any* of society's tasks (with automation), that no 'middlemen' roles can exist / be-carved-out, for the sake of task-specialization, as into fixed professions. The way to *guarantee* the proletarian revolution is to *generalize* all economic power, as with liberated-labor work roles, so that *no* specializations / professionalization happens, and especially regarding overall *administrative* tasks / roles, contrary to your Stalinistic bureaucratic-elitist state-collectivist politics.


SSDR wrote:
"As previously mentioned, my *own* model / approach *can* address this real-world situation, while you blather on about nothing, egomaniac." How am I an "egomaniac?"



You're an egomaniac because you think your own political *opinions* are sufficient for structuring a potential post-capitalist / socialist-type society. You're too reticent to *test* your political beliefs against the *logistics* implied by your positions, so you just sound mechanical, opinionated, and egomaniacal.


SSDR wrote:
"I didn't *say* that I *support* 'hyper-masculine hiphop', I said that such could not be *objected* to, as long as it doesn't advocate the harmful treatment of others, meaning women." Hip hop is a symbol of patriarchy and capitalism you shit.



Doesn't matter -- I'm not a fucking aspiring moralist censor, unlike you, so, again, as long as cultural content isn't being proactively counterrevolutionary or advocating harm to others it's not for *anyone* to censor, especially since no state apparatus would be required anyway, long-term.
#14982546
@Stardust, "Well, prove it..! " Death to currency! Death to social hierarchy! Someone who doesn't have a realist mindset makes me feel alone. And family is oppression. No person should be ruled by a name nor an elder relative.

"you proposed in clear wordings the existence of the social privileges for a part of the society you claim that will be contributing more effectively." Well some form of a socialist state needs to exist in order to coordinate things as best as possible, to prevent crime and chaos, and to prevent dispute among different people in society.

"In case you haven't worked it out yet, privileges in a nascent socialist society (assuming that the society is at that stage) are the first slipping steps backwards towards a class based society; as opposed to the classless society it should be heading for." Well I am a supporter of a socialist state. I am against anarchy.

"You have also suggested on many occasions, the strict ruling of the society by a few, to the extent that for example those who are not Socialists should not be allowed to live in such society, or slacking has to be forbidden by the rule, and those who are capable, but do not contribute to the production process / work should be Punished with the hardest methods of punishments, including even deprivation from food…

Well, I can say clearly this is Not the description of a Socialist society. Call it whatever you’d like, but this is the impure, and muddiest version of Socialism I have ever heard of!
"

- Socialism can only work with a socialist population. You cannot have a capitalist supporting population with a socialist economy. People who need religion to motivate them to be good, people who need family to motivate them to work, and people who need currency to control their greed and to motivate them to work cannot sustain themselves in a socialist society since their personalities are not socialist. Socialism can only work with a population that has a sense of reality (real consciousness), does not need religion to be good, and views family as a social hierarchy that promotes social slavery.

"After all you’ve said about coercing, and dictating to people how they should and should not live their lives; please just explain exactly How they’re supposed to achieve the above theory..? " I am not dictating how people should live their lives. I am against capitalist culture and capitalist lifestyle, and me not allowing capitalist culture is NOT dictating.

"The removal of a medium of exchange is ideal, but there should be a plan on how that is going to be achived, in the real world.

The concept of Use Value will always exist, irrespective of what kind of society we live in. It is that aspect of the things we produce, that we would be looking for in a Socialist society, where there are no exchange values at work.
" In socialism, the concept of value DOES NOT EXIST. You're saying otherwise because you're not a socialist.

"If "forced labour in labour camps, torture, then the death penalty" (See below, for your own exact statement), cannot be considered as oppression, then one should totally agree with you on this. " Well, criminals and slackers need to be handled. Rapists cannot live free.

"Please define the word ‘nurturement’, as it doesn’t seem to exist in the English vocabulary." Forced weddings, forced funerals, forced religious attendances, forced ceremonies, holidays that are used as decoys by the elite to keep the masses distracted, and fathers hugging their daughters teaching them that they "Need" love from men in order to be "truly happy" (so women can stay enslaved) are all examples of nurture.

"However, as I have already explained in my earlier post, religion (in the general term) could only be eliminated from the people’s beliefs system, when the need for that ‘opium’ is eliminated from society. This can only happen in the course of time…" But if the need for the religion doesn't exist anymore in a socialist economy, then why would you not want to go against religion in general? Since it would be useless, and would make people ignorant.

"Why should a Socialist, Anarchist or anyone defending the interests of the working class care what a Conservative think about him..? S/he would only go as far as 'asserting' her or his views in the way s/he knows best. Conservatives by definition, have middle-class / capitalist backgrounds, defending the interests of the exploitative class. They wouldn't give a damn about what a Socialist think of them.
The opposing classes in a class-based society, are in an antagonistic opposition of the interests towards one another.
"

- There are some VERY POOR conservatives. There are conservatives and other anti socialists that are very poor and ignorant. A socialist annoying a working class conservative would make that working class conservative hate the socialist thought even more.

"But you don't see these things, you don't look at the roots of the facts in society; because You are not a Socialist!" That has no reply to anything in this fuckin conversation. There are slaves who support slavery lol.
#14982549
@ckaihatsu, Your first reply makes no sense. It's practically useless. Your stance on "culture versus politics" doesn't add up. As usual, you keep making shit up lol.

"Look -- I'm here for the politics, not for hugs 'n' cookies. I don't *like* you, so I'm not going to *cooperate* with you. Got it?" Aww..... why don't you like me? I think you're mad.

"As usual, you're showing that you don't even *understand* socialism -- it's not that any of these activities should not be done -- as for your moralistic reasons -- but rather that the *market system* would be obviated under socialism" Yeah I said that in socialism, those conditions that make those criminals do those criminal acts wouldn't be put in a position to do those things because in a socialist economy, being a prostitute is useless, and that person wouldn't be put in a position to do prostitution since in socialism, currency and slavery don't exist.

"If you like, or, LGBTQ would just *happen* as a part of civil society, without the government-legal-status thing even being necessary *at all*." So if a workers' ran socialist society doesn't support LGBTQ, then LGBTQ would not be allowed.

"With all such socially-necessary work roles being fulfilled by available-and-willing liberated labor, post-capitalism, humanity would realize *vast* economies-of-scale, due to industrial liberated-productivity, which was my original point regarding this section." This has nothing to do with needing construction workers or doctors.

"Okay, your political line is *improving* now." And your's *isn't.*

"You're an egomaniac because you think your own political *opinions* are sufficient for structuring a potential post-capitalist / socialist-type society. You're too reticent to *test* your political beliefs against the *logistics* implied by your positions, so you just sound mechanical, opinionated, and egomaniacal." You make no sense.

"Doesn't matter -- I'm not a fucking aspiring moralist censor, unlike you, so, again, as long as cultural content isn't being proactively counterrevolutionary or advocating harm to others it's not for *anyone* to censor, especially since no state apparatus would be required anyway, long-term." Okie dokie have fun promoting a hyper capitalist culture in a socialist society.
#14982643
Stardust wrote:
The concept of Use Value will always exist, irrespective of what kind of society we live in. It is that aspect of the things we produce, that we would be looking for in a Socialist society, where there are no exchange values at work.



SSDR wrote:
In socialism, the concept of value DOES NOT EXIST. You're saying otherwise because you're not a socialist.




Use value (German: Gebrauchswert) or value in use is a concept in classical political economy and Marxian economics. It refers to the tangible features of a commodity (a tradeable object) which can satisfy some human requirement, want or need, or which serves a useful purpose. In Marx's critique of political economy, any product has a labor-value and a use-value, and if it is traded as a commodity in markets, it additionally has an exchange value, most often expressed as a money-price.[1]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_value



---
---


SSDR wrote:
There are some VERY POOR conservatives. There are conservatives and other anti socialists that are very poor and ignorant. A socialist annoying a working class conservative would make that working class conservative hate the socialist thought even more.



There's no need for 'annoying' if people here would just fucking stick to the *topic*. Any *political* topic will do, since that's what the board is *for*, and participants should stay away from ad-hominem stuff (remarks against the individual him- or herself).

As a socialist I don't go out into the world with the aim of 'annoying working class conservatives', because such would be *pointless* and counterproductive, politically. But if a working-class conservative *gets* annoyed and no personal attacks have been made, then that's *that* person's problem. Obviously they're not class-conscious and should learn to look out for *their own* class interests, instead of repeating ruling-class propaganda and mistruths.


---


Stardust wrote:
But you don't see these things, you don't look at the roots of the facts in society; because You are not a Socialist!



SSDR wrote:
That has no reply to anything in this fuckin conversation. There are slaves who support slavery lol.



This example is *perfect* for the previous section -- I was just mentioning 'false consciousness', and you've just given an example of it.


---


SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, Your first reply makes no sense. It's practically useless. Your stance on "culture versus politics" doesn't add up. As usual, you keep making shit up lol.



I don't care whatever your *opinion* happens to be on this-or-that thing I've said -- just deal with the *issues* and stop giving your worthless opinion as though it *means* something to others. It doesn't.


SSDR wrote:
"Look -- I'm here for the politics, not for hugs 'n' cookies. I don't *like* you, so I'm not going to *cooperate* with you. Got it?" Aww..... why don't you like me? I think you're mad.



No, if I were mad, you'd know it. Just don't expect cooperation from me -- that's what I was saying. No need for dramatization from you, either. Stop being childish.


SSDR wrote:
"As usual, you're showing that you don't even *understand* socialism -- it's not that any of these activities should not be done -- as for your moralistic reasons -- but rather that the *market system* would be obviated under socialism" Yeah I said that in socialism, those conditions that make those criminals do those criminal acts wouldn't be put in a position to do those things because in a socialist economy, being a prostitute is useless, and that person wouldn't be put in a position to do prostitution since in socialism, currency and slavery don't exist.



Exactly. See, you *can* be better at this socialism stuff if you *want* to. I still don't agree with your state-collectivism line, though, for the record.


SSDR wrote:
"If you like, or, LGBTQ would just *happen* as a part of civil society, without the government-legal-status thing even being necessary *at all*." So if a workers' ran socialist society doesn't support LGBTQ, then LGBTQ would not be allowed.



No, you're missing the point -- socialism is *about* egalitarianism, both in civil society and also in the liberated-workplace, so socialists making a proletarian revolution would all be *for* LGBTQ rights, by-definition.


SSDR wrote:
"With all such socially-necessary work roles being fulfilled by available-and-willing liberated labor, post-capitalism, humanity would realize *vast* economies-of-scale, due to industrial liberated-productivity, which was my original point regarding this section." This has nothing to do with needing construction workers or doctors.



Correct. People you interact-with will often have points of *their own* to make that have *nothing* to do with whatever egomaniacal thing you've just been spouting-off about.


SSDR wrote:
"Okay, your political line is *improving* now." And your's *isn't.*



It *doesn't have to* -- it's already correct, and you're unable or unwilling to even *address* many points that I've made, instead *forfeiting* those points.


SSDR wrote:
"You're an egomaniac because you think your own political *opinions* are sufficient for structuring a potential post-capitalist / socialist-type society. You're too reticent to *test* your political beliefs against the *logistics* implied by your positions, so you just sound mechanical, opinionated, and egomaniacal." You make no sense.



Well, you asked.

What I'm saying is that if you say 'Slavery is outdated and unnecessary', for example, you then have to provide an answer to the political-economy question of 'How will social production get done, then?'

Typically on something like this you'd give your facile opinion, something like 'You make no sense', or 'I don't have to do that.', which just means that you're unable / unwilling to address the point at-hand, proving that all you care about is hearing yourself talk -- that's why I call you an egomaniac.


SSDR wrote:
"Doesn't matter -- I'm not a fucking aspiring moralist censor, unlike you, so, again, as long as cultural content isn't being proactively counterrevolutionary or advocating harm to others it's not for *anyone* to censor, especially since no state apparatus would be required anyway, long-term." Okie dokie have fun promoting a hyper capitalist culture in a socialist society.



Well, that's not what I'm doing.

Your authoritarian-Stalinist-state fantasy is just that: your own, and nothing more. There's no connection between what you espouse, to anything that social-reality would actually *require*. All it would take is for a mass movement to oppose *you* personally and then your entire political vision would be cancelled.
#14982779
@ckaihatsu, "There's no need for 'annoying' if people here would just fucking stick to the *topic*. Any *political* topic will do, since that's what the board is *for*, and participants should stay away from ad-hominem stuff (remarks against the individual him- or herself)." Yeah you're one of those people who can't even make direct replies. So if you can't stick to the topic, then why should someone else do that to you?

"I don't care whatever your *opinion* happens to be on this-or-that thing I've said -- just deal with the *issues* and stop giving your worthless opinion as though it *means* something to others. It doesn't." How can you give "worthy" of someone else's opinion? You're a socialist? In socialism, worthiness and the concept of value both don't exist you fucking retard.

"No, if I were mad, you'd know it. Just don't expect cooperation from me -- that's what I was saying. No need for dramatization from you, either. Stop being childish." What are you going to do if you are mad? Uhh baby boy? I am not being dramatic. And being "childish" is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

"I still don't agree with your state-collectivism line, though, for the record." I never said you had to.

"No, you're missing the point -- socialism is *about* egalitarianism, both in civil society and also in the liberated-workplace, so socialists making a proletarian revolution would all be *for* LGBTQ rights, by-definition." LGBTQ stuff is lifestylist and internal, rather than socialist. It has nothing to do with socialism. Some socialists support it. Some go against it. Stop getting so defensive lol.

People you interact-with will often have points of *their own* to make that have *nothing* to do with whatever retarded thing you've just been spouting-off about. You're unable or unwilling to even *address* many points that I've made, instead *forfeiting* those points.

"Typically on something like this you'd give your facile opinion, something like 'You make no sense', or 'I don't have to do that.', which just means that you're unable / unwilling to address the point at-hand, proving that all you care about is hearing yourself talk -- that's why I call you an egomaniac." Well then I'm going to start calling you an egomaniac because you make NO SENSE. All it would take is for a mass movement to oppose *you* personally and then your entire political vision would be cancelled.
#14982929
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, "There's no need for 'annoying' if people here would just fucking stick to the *topic*. Any *political* topic will do, since that's what the board is *for*, and participants should stay away from ad-hominem stuff (remarks against the individual him- or herself)." Yeah you're one of those people who can't even make direct replies. So if you can't stick to the topic, then why should someone else do that to you?



You're straight-out *lying*. I do respond directly.


SSDR wrote:
"I don't care whatever your *opinion* happens to be on this-or-that thing I've said -- just deal with the *issues* and stop giving your worthless opinion as though it *means* something to others. It doesn't." How can you give "worthy" of someone else's opinion? You're a socialist? In socialism, worthiness and the concept of value both don't exist you fucking retard.



Stop the name-calling -- you're going off on tangents again.


SSDR wrote:
"No, if I were mad, you'd know it. Just don't expect cooperation from me -- that's what I was saying. No need for dramatization from you, either. Stop being childish." What are you going to do if you are mad? Uhh baby boy? I am not being dramatic. And being "childish" is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.



'Baby boy' -- this is more inappropriateness from you.


SSDR wrote:
"I still don't agree with your state-collectivism line, though, for the record." I never said you had to.



You don't have to.


SSDR wrote:
"No, you're missing the point -- socialism is *about* egalitarianism, both in civil society and also in the liberated-workplace, so socialists making a proletarian revolution would all be *for* LGBTQ rights, by-definition." LGBTQ stuff is lifestylist and internal, rather than socialist. It has nothing to do with socialism. Some socialists support it. Some go against it. Stop getting so defensive lol.



Well the *people* who are LGBTQ *say* that they were *born* that way, and I, for one, accept that. Therefore it's not lifestylist and 'internal' -- it's *biological* and deserving of civil rights, social acceptance, etc.


SSDR wrote:
People you interact-with will often have points of *their own* to make that have *nothing* to do with whatever retarded thing you've just been spouting-off about. You're unable or unwilling to even *address* many points that I've made, instead *forfeiting* those points.



This is what I *actually* said:


ckaihatsu wrote:
People you interact-with will often have points of *their own* to make that have *nothing* to do with whatever egomaniacal thing you've just been spouting-off about.



---


SSDR wrote:
"Typically on something like this you'd give your facile opinion, something like 'You make no sense', or 'I don't have to do that.', which just means that you're unable / unwilling to address the point at-hand, proving that all you care about is hearing yourself talk -- that's why I call you an egomaniac." Well then I'm going to start calling you an egomaniac because you make NO SENSE. All it would take is for a mass movement to oppose *you* personally and then your entire political vision would be cancelled.



Nope, it wouldn't, and *that's* the difference -- your political vision has to do with only *yourself*, while a Trotskyist line is *international*. It's not about ones-or-twos, it's about the objective class interests of the world's working class.
#14982956
@ckaihatsu, "You're straight-out *lying*. I do respond directly." NO YOU DON'T! lol :lol:

"Stop the name-calling -- you're going off on tangents again." Egomaniac.

"'Baby boy' -- this is more inappropriateness from you." "Inappropriate" is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.

"You don't have to." Twisting words.... as usual. :lol:

"Well the *people* who are LGBTQ *say* that they were *born* that way, and I, for one, accept that. Therefore it's not lifestylist and 'internal' -- it's *biological* and deserving of civil rights, social acceptance, etc." This is internal, and has nothing to do with economic socialism. Stick to the topic you egomaniac. Your political vision has to do with only yourself.
#14983049
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, "You're straight-out *lying*. I do respond directly." NO YOU DON'T! lol :lol:



You're *laughing* -- ? This is play-time for you, huh?


SSDR wrote:
"Stop the name-calling -- you're going off on tangents again." Egomaniac.



*Defending myself* from your name-calling makes me an 'egomaniac', according to you -- ?


SSDR wrote:
"'Baby boy' -- this is more inappropriateness from you." "Inappropriate" is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT.



It's from *you*, and it's inappropriate.


SSDR wrote:
"You don't have to." Twisting words.... as usual. :lol:



Pay attention to the *meaning* of what I'm saying, instead of going-off on tangents. You're not even making any political points anymore, whatsoever.


SSDR wrote:
"Well the *people* who are LGBTQ *say* that they were *born* that way, and I, for one, accept that. Therefore it's not lifestylist and 'internal' -- it's *biological* and deserving of civil rights, social acceptance, etc." This is internal, and has nothing to do with economic socialism. Stick to the topic you egomaniac. Your political vision has to do with only yourself.



Untrue -- you're simply *projecting* the qualities that apply to *you* and your so-called 'politics'.

Socialism isn't *purely* economic -- it's social and political, too.
#14983232
@ckaihatsu, "You're *laughing* -- ? This is play-time for you, huh?" Yeah it sure is. What are you gonna do lol?

"*Defending myself* from your name-calling makes me an 'egomaniac', according to you -- ?" Yeah why do you need to "defend" yourself? Who's attacking you?

"It's from *you*, and it's inappropriate." Once again you're twisting words and making a twisting response by saying "It's from *you.*" I said that "inappropriate is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT."

Pay attention to the *meaning* of what I'm saying, instead of going-off on tangents. You're not even making any political points anymore, whatsoever. Okay ckaihatsu?

"Untrue -- you're simply *projecting* the qualities that apply to *you* and your so-called 'politics'." That response is weak asf lol.

"Socialism isn't *purely* economic -- it's social and political, too" Yes that is true, but you don't need to say if a socialist society doesn't support LGBTQ rights, then that socialist society isn't socialist, "it's some state capitalist or 'Stalinist' state" or whatever bullshit you use, you manipulator.
#14983346
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, "You're *laughing* -- ? This is play-time for you, huh?" Yeah it sure is. What are you gonna do lol?



This is a *politics* forum -- stop with the interpersonal silliness.


SSDR wrote:
"*Defending myself* from your name-calling makes me an 'egomaniac', according to you -- ?" Yeah why do you need to "defend" yourself? Who's attacking you?



I just said -- stop the name-calling.


SSDR wrote:
"It's from *you*, and it's inappropriate." Once again you're twisting words and making a twisting response by saying "It's from *you.*" I said that "inappropriate is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT."



Whatever.


SSDR wrote:
Pay attention to the *meaning* of what I'm saying, instead of going-off on tangents. You're not even making any political points anymore, whatsoever. Okay ckaihatsu?



No, that applies to you, not me.


SSDR wrote:
"Untrue -- you're simply *projecting* the qualities that apply to *you* and your so-called 'politics'." That response is weak asf lol.



It's also true.


SSDR wrote:
"Socialism isn't *purely* economic -- it's social and political, too" Yes that is true, but you don't need to say if a socialist society doesn't support LGBTQ rights, then that socialist society isn't socialist, "it's some state capitalist or 'Stalinist' state" or whatever bullshit you use, you manipulator.



Well, why would a socialist society conceivably *not* support LGBTQ rights? (And, in the *post*-capitalist context, there wouldn't have to be specialized, demographically-subdivided 'rights' because everyone would be on the same level, anyway. 'Rights' is a *bourgeois* artifact / social construct.
#14983361
@ckaihatsu, "This is a *politics* forum -- stop with the interpersonal silliness." I can say whatever I want. You are responsible for how people treat you. If you don't like whatever I am doing, then stop doing what you're doing.

"I just said -- stop the name-calling." What the FUCK does this have to do with: "Yeah why do you need to "defend" yourself? Who's attacking you?"

"No, that applies to you, not me." Wrong, as usual.

"No, that applies to you, not me." Well... prove it!

"Well, why would a socialist society conceivably *not* support LGBTQ rights? (And, in the *post*-capitalist context, there wouldn't have to be specialized, demographically-subdivided 'rights' because everyone would be on the same level, anyway. 'Rights' is a *bourgeois* artifact / social construct" If every worker in a socialist society didn't support LGBTQ rights, then that would be their social values. I don't know why they would or wouldn't support it, you would have to ask them.
#14983379
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, "This is a *politics* forum -- stop with the interpersonal silliness." I can say whatever I want. You are responsible for how people treat you. If you don't like whatever I am doing, then stop doing what you're doing.



*I'm* responsible for how people treat me -- ?? -- !

Great -- you sound like a sick fuck with that line, in line with your overall *criminalization* mentality. I hope you don't have kids.


SSDR wrote:
"I just said -- stop the name-calling." What the FUCK does this have to do with: "Yeah why do you need to "defend" yourself? Who's attacking you?"



Just stop.


SSDR wrote:
"No, that applies to you, not me." Wrong, as usual.



You're wrong.


SSDR wrote:
"No, that applies to you, not me." Well... prove it!



No, you.


SSDR wrote:
"Well, why would a socialist society conceivably *not* support LGBTQ rights? (And, in the *post*-capitalist context, there wouldn't have to be specialized, demographically-subdivided 'rights' because everyone would be on the same level, anyway. 'Rights' is a *bourgeois* artifact / social construct" If every worker in a socialist society didn't support LGBTQ rights, then that would be their social values. I don't know why they would or wouldn't support it, you would have to ask them.



Again, 'rights', as in 'civil rights', is a *bourgeois* artifact / social construct from the days of the French Revolution when the merchant class was superseding the aristocracy / monarchs in economics, power, and social status / hegemony. Today the situation is one of private control over society's mass-industrial production, so 'rights' aren't objectively as meaningful as matters of *income* and economic proportionality are, over how society handles its social-production.

Sure, 'rights' will continue to be *relevant*, within the context of capitalism's exploitation and oppression, but ultimately 'rights' will become meaningless and superseded within a solid movement of the international proletariat since all workplace matters will be collectivized more-or-less uniformly, not needing the politics of favoritism and elitism as bourgeois ruling-class politics do.
#14983401
@ckaihatsu, "*I'm* responsible for how people treat me -- ?? -- !

Great -- you sound like a sick fuck with that line, in line with your overall *criminalization* mentality. I hope you don't have kids.
"

Yes you are responsible for how people treat you dumb fuck. Haha you hope like a believer! lol.

"Just stop." You can't answer a simple question dumbass.

You seem to be almost useless in terms of having a simple discussion. You can't make direct replies, you're bossy like a right wing man, and you make NO sense. You can't back up your words by telling me "to stop" like a baby.
#14983407
@ckaihatsu, "*I'm* responsible for how people treat me -- ?? -- !

Great -- you sound like a sick fuck with that line, in line with your overall *criminalization* mentality. I hope you don't have kids.
"

You keep twisting words. You twist everything around. Watch, you're still going to do that like a virgin lol.
#14983411
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, "*I'm* responsible for how people treat me -- ?? -- !

Great -- you sound like a sick fuck with that line, in line with your overall *criminalization* mentality. I hope you don't have kids.
"

Yes you are responsible for how people treat you dumb fuck. Haha you hope like a believer! lol.



You have some delusional concept of a perfectly-moral world, which, in reality, *doesn't exist*.

Yes, I do exist and I have interactions with others, but the world was around *before* I was born, and has empirical dynamics of its own, such as 'late capitalism' -- you're simply pretending that the world is perfect so anything that happens to anyone must be their own fault, for how they are individually in the world.

This moralist line of yours just doesn't cut it, because you wind up *blaming* people like myself for anything bad that happens to me / them, within the larger world of capitalist-dominated social relations.

You'd rather *blame victims*, *criminalize*, and *apologize-for* the negative social impacts of a ruling-class-dominated world, which imposes its own damaging logic *down onto* people's lives as a matter of course.


SSDR wrote:
"Just stop." You can't answer a simple question dumbass.

You seem to be almost useless in terms of having a simple discussion. You can't make direct replies, you're bossy like a right wing man, and you make NO sense. You can't back up your words by telling me "to stop" like a baby.



I'm not interested in pointing out all of your personal character flaws -- stick to *political* topics and we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise just go away because there's nothing interpersonal here.
#14983414
@ckaihatsu, Well there is no fixed human nature, but committing crime and causing chaos is wrong.

"I'm not interested in pointing out all of your personal character flaws -- stick to *political* topics and we'll have something to discuss. Otherwise just go away because there's nothing interpersonal here." When did you lose your virginity?
#14983418
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, Well there is no fixed human nature, but committing crime and causing chaos is wrong.



Well, it depends on the definition of 'crime' and 'chaos', within a *class-divided* world.

Here's a framework that's relevant here:


‭History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

Spoiler: show
Image



Maybe you'd like to give some examples, so as to concretize this abstract topic.
#15021063
SSDR wrote:@ckaihatsu, Yes, in pure terms nationality is a construct, and in pure terms, national background could be used as a construct. But many people like differences. The only way that your backwards ideas can work is if everyone is the same, and if everyone is the same, isn't that racist? And, if everyone was the same, wouldn't the "World be boring?" People are different, and it's okay to have difference, it's racist and boring not to. But we need to defend those differences to prevent social chaos and dispute, since those things are the enemies of socialism.

The world would be boring if everyone was the same. So we need to defend those differences.


Well you defending Islamic imperialism through "anti racist acceptance" will destroy socialism. Islam is the enemy of socialism.

But just because if the whole world is socialist, doesn't mean that Czechs would HAVE to mix with Ethiopians. Because most people wouldn't like that, even Stalin wouldn't. :lol:

The Soviet Union had no problem with different nationalities mixing together , or even intermarrying . For example , take this scene from the Stalin era movie , " Tsirk"
, which featured the child actor James Lloydovich Patterson .
#15021065
Deutschmania wrote:The Soviet Union had no problem with different nationalities mixing together , or even intermarrying . For example , take this scene from the Stalin era movie , " Tsirk"


I am against identity denial. I would not want to live around people who are very different than me. I would not want to be surrounded by people who make noise all night and who turn communities into shit hole slums.

I would not want anyone to walk freely without worrying about being raped by someone who comes from Africa or the Middle East.

I am not a "Stalinist." I am not a "Marxist-Leninist." Lenin and Stalin were Zionists. The Soviet Union was a mixed, Zionist state who made the DDR a decoy state. They tried to make Poland their decoy as well.

I am not a "follower" of the Soviet Union.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13

I don't know one way or the other, and neither […]

How did you become a socialist?

The irony of Deutschmania's complaint against you[…]

https://external-preview.redd.it/k3Nd[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

NO. Why would you think I advocate deceit when[…]