How did you become a socialist? - Page 10 - 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.
#14978745
One Degree wrote:
You obviously ran out of arguments so you started labeling me and insulting me. I returned the favor instead of ignoring you when you resorted to it. People having fewer babies by choice is not genocide no matter how distorted you try to define it.



Okay, I'll take your clarification at face-value.


One Degree wrote:
Uniting the workers of the world before you solve a problem sounds like you are much more concerned with an ideology than actually helping people. Why not start making each community better by whatever means suits them so we have stronger and more communities to help the others? This is an exponential solution that can be started right now in one community. Designate massive free loans to one community to revitalize it and make it as self sufficient as possible in necessities. Then move on to the next with the help of the first etc. Quit waiting for the world to accept your ideology and start building communities.



I'll *pass* on that, because *you're* the liberal, not me -- you're part of the 'chattering class' if you think that a large-scale approach is not needed. Again, look at the starvation and malnutrition statistic -- instead of writing propaganda for your 'community' ideology, why can't the world hand control of social production over to the workers, so that they / we can provide a more humane-rational approach to feeding the world, etc. -- ?


SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, You said that I need to *text*



No, that's not what I said.


SSDR wrote:
and what you meant by that was that I "can't text" because I was using "lol." I am not a fascist. If you think I am a fascist, then you don't know what fascism is. I am also not a Stalinist. I am individualistic and I seek freedom and privacy for each person. Stalin was collective, and was a little more strict. He was also family oriented. Stalin was also a Zionist. Fascists are far more strict and aggressive than me. I mean I am also not an anarchist, or a Western Marxist that accepts reactionary movements such as Islamic extremism.



Then please stop touting 'socialism-in-one-country', which *is* Stalinist.


SSDR wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/Enver-Hoxha-79 ... SEARCH_BOX

If you are on Facebook (which I am not because Facebook promotes cultural capitalism and is competitive) then go to the link I provided. That is a page dedicated to Enver Hoxha. You should talk to some of the people on there. Use online translators via copy and paste. Most of those people are Albanians in Albania, and have socialist leanings. Even though most of them are not socialists or true Marxists, they have more Stalinist leanings than me. I bet you wouldn't last more than one day on there.



I don't use my time to 'last' on various discussion boards on the Internet -- there is actual *substance* to what I post, which you're just glossing-over in favor of your head-trip that politics is all some sort of big 'tournament'.


SSDR wrote:
Stalinism is a type of socialism. I am no Stalinist, but the people on that Enver Hoxha facebook page have more Stalinist leanings.



Repeating a fallacy doesn't make it any truer -- socialism is *international*, and Stalinism is not socialism.


SSDR wrote:
Private property, capitalist currency, and internationalism are not linked with each other.



*Of course* they are -- if someone sells some real estate they get *currency* for it. This is capitalism's *exchange values* in two different forms, which are *connected* in exchange value like cities on a map.

Internationally such exchange values / capital have *more* legal rights than *people* do:

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


---


SSDR wrote:
Private property existed in capitalism, and in feudalism. Capitalist currency has nothing to do with taking pride in one's nation or wanting to be really internationalistic like you. And internationalism has nothing to do with loving or hating money. None of these things are connected, thus meaning they are not comparable.


SSDR wrote:
"These existing differences in international standards..." my response to that paragraph is that you should really get involved with the people on that Enver Hoxha facebook page. Thousands of Albanians who have pro socialist leanings are on there. Do you honestly think that they have the same standards as an introverted, quiet, and freedom seeking Swede? Nobody has to be on facebook. Those Albanians are like that because that is how they are, the system is not making them be like that because if it was, and they realized that it's not correct, then they wouldn't be on there, feeling that it is oppression if they are. Some of those Albanians whom are ugly get hundreds of likes. While some good looking German or Czech woman gets at the most 10 likes. Because different people have different standards. As an introvert myself, I don't think that introversion and extroversion are 100 percent linked to capitalism or internationalist stuff that you keep mentioning.



You seem to be trying to *psychologize* / personalize issues of political-economy, when such issues take place at the *mass* scale, and are *not* specific to any one person.


SSDR wrote:
If a Swede lived in Bangladesh, they would get depressed because they would not be allowed to drink, masturbate, openly be an atheist and deal with all of those reactionary Muslims, and would not have any privacy because Swedes are private, individualistic people who work hard while most Bangladeshis are extroverted, family oriented people who LOVE drama!



You're talking about *cultural* matters here, and *not* politics.


SSDR wrote:
"Yes, it does because socialism, by definition, is *worldwide*, is done by the *international* proletariat, and was never intended to be country-by-country-only." Oh yeah? Prove it.



Glad to:



The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.



https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/w ... o/ch02.htm



---


SSDR wrote:
"Incorrect -- fascism hews to the *nationalist* political entity, and supports the capitalist economic system while socialism is the *antithesis* of these." You do realize that nationalization of economics and society is a type of socialism? And some fascists went against the capitalist mode of production, labeling it as "obsolete" and crime promoting.



No, this is unsubstantiated. I'd like to see some sources from you to back up this contention.


---


SSDR wrote:
[S]ome of those fascist policies had socialist leanings. Remember, fascism has socialist roots.



ckaihatsu wrote:
No, it doesn't, and you still haven't introduced any evidence that supports this bullshit of yours.



SSDR wrote:
https://www.econlib.org/library/Columns ... scism.html "Mussolini declared, “Three-fourths of [the] Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state.”"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_N ... ssociation

Wikipedia claims that the Italian Nationalist Association is left wing, supports left wing nationalism, wants to keep equal unity for all Italic people (remember, Sicilians were viewed differently than Northern Italians in the 19th century, Italian unity was a quasi socialist and a left wing movement), and supports some elements of corporatism (corporatism is inbetween capitalism and socialism and has syndicalist roots).

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



Just because some kind of *nationalization* takes place doesn't mean that it automatically 'has socialist roots'. You're completely ignoring the *politics* of fascism, which is for violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status.


SSDR wrote:
So rape and bullying would be considered "tiny" in your model? And gangs must be destroyed. No human should belong or not belong in a "group."



You're putting words in my mouth -- be more careful how you represent my positions.

The *point* is that if you want policing of civil society then a *state apparatus* must exist. For a post-capitalist world society having a state-like institution for that would be *redundant*, because *everyone* could do 'policing'-type things simply as a matter of collectivist politics, in ongoing motion.


SSDR wrote:
My biggest problems with fascism is that fascism is very collective socially, meaning that there is no personal freedom. Fascism is anti feminist, so women were looked down on. And that fascism is not egalitarian, in fascism, there are people above and below you, in which I do not like.

But seriously, check out some Stalinist leaning pages on facebook... you wouldn't last a very long time on those pages I think.



Pass.
#14978840
@ckaihatsu, That is what you said, you basically said that "I can't text because I kept saying lol" in an indirect way. If not, then what were you trying to say?

I am not touting "Socialism in one country" just because I am not a pure internationalist doesn't mean that I am touting socialism in one country.

"I don't use my time to 'last' on various discussion boards on the Internet" That is a very weak, passive response. "there is actual *substance* to what I post" no there isn't, for crying out loud, some people can't understand what you're saying because you're not making direct response, hence you're being manipulative and you are sometimes twisting words. "which you're just glossing-over in favor of your head-trip that politics is all some sort of big 'tournament'." No I don't think this is a tournament. You somewhat do because you claimed that politics isn't what one believes, you claimed that politics is "politics is *problem-solving*, on mass scales." The more you post, the less "problem solving" your politics/views are.

Stalinism is a kind of socialism, and socialism doesn't have to be international. And I keep explaining to you why.

"You seem to be trying to *psychologize* / personalize issues of political-economy, when such issues take place at the *mass* scale, and are *not* specific to any one person." Well, if you don't get to politics then politics gets to you. Every person is different, but the majority per nationality, ethnicity, etc. are similar. And many people know this. And every time I mention a complain, such as ghetto streets or slums, you're going to keep making the "personalize issues" response, in which you're using to defend your responses that not only don't add up, but don't respond to what others like myself are saying.

Culture and politics are linked. Why do you feel not?

I disagree with the 'proof' that you made your response with in regards to socialism HAVING to be 100 percent international. You didn't write that, so you're stealing other people's beliefs.

"Just because some kind of *nationalization* takes place doesn't mean that it automatically 'has socialist roots'. You're completely ignoring the *politics* of fascism, which is for violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status." Nationalization of economics is socialist leaning, or is a kind of a socialist economic policy or practice. It's not privatized. And a "violent persecution based on social/racial/ethnic status" has NOTHING to do with socialism. Capitalists and reactionaries are enemies of socialism, so for them to be 'persecuted' in a socialist society is not anti socialist. Race has NOTHING to do with socialism. What if the whole world was one race? Skin colour has no connection to socialism. And most people have some prejudice or hatred to at least one ethnicity. You have to be honest.

Why should I be careful when I put "words in your mouth?" You're doing the same to other people.

Yeah I knew you would pass on checking out some Stalinist leaning pages on Facebook because you know everyone would against your ideas. You don't always have the answer.
#14978982
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, That is what you said, you basically said that "I can't text because I kept saying lol" in an indirect way. If not, then what were you trying to say?



You're not even providing the *link* for the post that you're alleging this from.


SSDR wrote:
I am not touting "Socialism in one country" just because I am not a pure internationalist doesn't mean that I am touting socialism in one country.



It really doesn't matter at this point. You'd rather *distort* the meaning of 'socialism' than come to grips with what's necessary.


SSDR wrote:
"I don't use my time to 'last' on various discussion boards on the Internet" That is a very weak, passive response. "there is actual *substance* to what I post" no there isn't, for crying out loud, some people can't understand what you're saying because you're not making direct response, hence you're being manipulative and you are sometimes twisting words. "which you're just glossing-over in favor of your head-trip that politics is all some sort of big 'tournament'." No I don't think this is a tournament. You somewhat do because you claimed that politics isn't what one believes, you claimed that politics is "politics is *problem-solving*, on mass scales." The more you post, the less "problem solving" your politics/views are.



Look, would you *please* stop replying to me -- there's nothing new to be said, and our points of disagreement are clear and have been covered repeatedly.


SSDR wrote:
Stalinism is a kind of socialism, and socialism doesn't have to be international. And I keep explaining to you why.



No, it's not -- stop saying this to me.


SSDR wrote:
"You seem to be trying to *psychologize* / personalize issues of political-economy, when such issues take place at the *mass* scale, and are *not* specific to any one person." Well, if you don't get to politics then politics gets to you. Every person is different, but the majority per nationality, ethnicity, etc. are similar. And many people know this. And every time I mention a complain, such as ghetto streets or slums, you're going to keep making the "personalize issues" response, in which you're using to defend your responses that not only don't add up, but don't respond to what others like myself are saying.



You're *not listening* -- that's why you keep going off on irrelevant tangents.


SSDR wrote:
Culture and politics are linked. Why do you feel not?



Sure, they're *linked* -- I never said they're not, but you have to understand 'base and superstructure', *then* there might be common grounds for further discussion.


SSDR wrote:
I disagree with the 'proof' that you made your response with in regards to socialism HAVING to be 100 percent international. You didn't write that, so you're stealing other people's beliefs.



"Stealing" -- more provocative accusations and mischaracterizations from you. I *openly* call myself a Marxist.


SSDR wrote:
"Just because some kind of *nationalization* takes place doesn't mean that it automatically 'has socialist roots'. You're completely ignoring the *politics* of fascism, which is for violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status." Nationalization of economics is socialist leaning, or is a kind of a socialist economic policy or practice. It's not privatized.



But what are the *politics* of it -- ? Nationalization for *what* -- ? No, nationalization is not *automatically* socialist, politically.


SSDR wrote:
And a "violent persecution based on social/racial/ethnic status" has NOTHING to do with socialism.



I never said it did -- you have a *very* bad habit of misconstruing my meanings. I said this quality correlates to the politics of *fascism*, right there, above.


SSDR wrote:
Capitalists and reactionaries are enemies of socialism, so for them to be 'persecuted' in a socialist society is not anti socialist. Race has NOTHING to do with socialism. What if the whole world was one race? Skin colour has no connection to socialism. And most people have some prejudice or hatred to at least one ethnicity. You have to be honest.

Why should I be careful when I put "words in your mouth?" You're doing the same to other people.

Yeah I knew you would pass on checking out some Stalinist leaning pages on Facebook because you know everyone would against your ideas. You don't always have the answer.



No, I passed on your revisionist-type socialism-in-one-state because it's *Stalinist* at best, and pro-Western-imperialism at worst.

And, no, I don't misconstrue other people's ideas and statements, unlike you.
#14979141
@ckaihatsu, I provided you multiple links through out our discussion.

You're distorting the definition of socialism. You're asking me to "please" stop replying to you? Weak. And Stalinism is a kind of socialism, and socialism doesn't have to be international. And I keep explaining to you why.

I can't listen to what you're trying to say because we're texting, we're not talking. I can't hear you. This is texting, NOT calling. But anyways, I am reading what you're saying and most of your sayings make no sense, even other people are saying that.

""Stealing" -- more provocative accusations and mischaracterizations from you. I *openly* call myself a Marxist." What the *fuck* is that? lol. You call yourself a Marxist because you can't have your own views, so you have to revise other's views. Stalin, Castro, Mao, Trotsky, Tito, and Chomsky all call themselves "Marxists" yet their views are all a little different than Marx since they are not Karl Marx. And Marx didn't call himself a "Marxist" he called himself a "scientific socialist." I am a scientific socialist myself, unlike you.

"But what are the *politics* of it -- ? Nationalization for *what* -- ? No, nationalization is not *automatically* socialist, politically." Why a system is socialist is different than if a system is socialist or not. Communists use socialism to reach communism. Marx used socialism to base his beliefs. Some pro socialist fascists used socialism to reach national glory and strength.

"I never said it did -- you have a *very* bad habit of misconstruing my meanings. I said this quality correlates to the politics of *fascism*, right there, above." And you never said it didn't either, so you're twisting words as usual. And some fascists support a socialist economy while others don't.

"Socialism in one country" and "Stalinism" are ANTI REVISIONIST. Most Stalinists or Stalinist leaning socialists are anti revisionist. You don't want to revolt against "Western imperialism" which helped modernize the world, you want to REACT to it because you're a reactionary who is defending Islamic groups that support slavery and go against feminism.

"And, no, I don't misconstrue other people's ideas and statements, unlike you" Yeah you do you're just not proud of it lol.
#14979224
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I provided you multiple links through out our discussion.



No, you haven't. You haven't provided even one, which you're welcome to do now.


SSDR wrote:
You're distorting the definition of socialism. You're asking me to "please" stop replying to you? Weak. And Stalinism is a kind of socialism, and socialism doesn't have to be international. And I keep explaining to you why.



And I keep telling you and explaining that Stalinism *isn't* socialism because it's impossible to have a global mixture of different kinds of mode-of-production, capitalist and socialist, as we saw with the eventual implosion of USSR, a degenerated workers state.


SSDR wrote:
I can't listen to what you're trying to say because we're texting, we're not talking. I can't hear you. This is texting, NOT calling. But anyways, I am reading what you're saying and most of your sayings make no sense, even other people are saying that.



No, what I say makes sense, you're just deciding not to *accept* it.


SSDR wrote:
""Stealing" -- more provocative accusations and mischaracterizations from you. I *openly* call myself a Marxist." What the *fuck* is that? lol. You call yourself a Marxist because you can't have your own views, so you have to revise other's views.



Revolutionary politics isn't about being personally *creative* with one's viewpoint, it's about getting things *right*, scientifically, which you've proven yourself to be unable or unwilling to do. Here's a little help:


philosophical abstractions

Spoiler: show
Image



---


SSDR wrote:
Stalin, Castro, Mao, Trotsky, Tito, and Chomsky all call themselves "Marxists" yet their views are all a little different than Marx since they are not Karl Marx. And Marx didn't call himself a "Marxist" he called himself a "scientific socialist." I am a scientific socialist myself, unlike you.



No, you're not. See the previous segment.


SSDR wrote:
"But what are the *politics* of it -- ? Nationalization for *what* -- ? No, nationalization is not *automatically* socialist, politically." Why a system is socialist is different than if a system is socialist or not. Communists use socialism to reach communism. Marx used socialism to base his beliefs.


SSDR wrote:
Some pro socialist fascists used socialism to reach national glory and strength.



There's no such thing as socialism-for-fascism -- socialism is for the world's *working class*, and not for the workers of just one country or another.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Just because some kind of *nationalization* takes place doesn't mean that it automatically 'has socialist roots'. You're completely ignoring the *politics* of fascism, which is for violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status.



SSDR wrote:
And a "violent persecution based on social/racial/ethnic status" has NOTHING to do with socialism.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I never said it did -- you have a *very* bad habit of misconstruing my meanings. I said this quality correlates to the politics of *fascism*, right there, above.



SSDR wrote:
And you never said it didn't either, so you're twisting words as usual.



Yes, I *did* say that a 'violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status' has nothing to do with socialism. It's right there, above.


SSDR wrote:
And some fascists support a socialist economy while others don't.



No, fascism is politically *incompatible* with socialism.


SSDR wrote:
"Socialism in one country" and "Stalinism" are ANTI REVISIONIST.



No, they're not -- Stalinism is *revisionist* because it abandons working class collective self-activity, in favor of retreating to more bourgeois-like norms, like the nation-state entity, for participation in bourgeois geopolitics, as under Stalin.


SSDR wrote:
Most Stalinists or Stalinist leaning socialists are anti revisionist.



Nope.


SSDR wrote:
You don't want to revolt against "Western imperialism" which helped modernize the world, you want to REACT to it because you're a reactionary



No, I'm not. I'm all for the world's working class and its potential to collectively control society's means of mass industrial production.


SSDR wrote:
who is defending Islamic groups that support slavery and go against feminism.



No, I don't and you haven't referenced anything from me that goes along with this spurious, erroneous political line.


SSDR wrote:
"And, no, I don't misconstrue other people's ideas and statements, unlike you" Yeah you do you're just not proud of it lol.



Nope, incorrect again.
#14979349
@ckaihatsu, I did provide at least one link before, you're just refusing to look back.

It's not impossible to have different kinds of modes of production in the world. Capitalism and feudalism existed in the same planet in the 1800's. And both capitalist and feudalist countries traded with each other at the time.

The reason why what you're saying makes no sense is because your responses aren't replying to what I or to what others are saying/asking to you. You also tend to twist words because you know you're not correct.

Marx was a revolutionary. Marxists were also revolutionary. People like Stalin, Trotsky, or Mao who added their own stuff in the Marxist ideology is NOT "creative" it's revolutionary because different conditions require different solutions. That's why some socialists such as myself or even Marx himself call themselves "scientific socialists" because socialism is scientifically based. Depending on the technologies that are available, if society is religious or not (you claim that there are religious revolutionaries), or eugenics (again I don't think that socialism is for everyone, or Swedes have different standards than Somalians) a different or modified form of socialism may be required. What kind of socialist society that needs to exist today won't be the same as what kind of socialism would need to exist in the 1950's or the 1870's. Marx lived in the 19th century, so for you to be a die heart crying Marxist is useless because we're not in the 19th century anymore. We have the internet, more automated technology, more medicine, more knowledge on politics, and a better understanding on what Islam is from either a western, or a revolutionary viewpoint, Which means that Marx never knew what the Islamic world was really about, and due to him not knowing because Germany or Britain never had mass Islamic immigration, he thought that socialism could purely work globally with the Muslim world, not realizing that the Muslim world has different standards than the west. Which means that Islam is NOT capable of revolutionary socialism, or Marxism. Unlike Marx, his time period didn't have a global internet, nor advanced AI.

I am a scientific socialist. You're not a scientific socialist. You're an ultraleftist anarchist.

It's not "socialism for fascism" it's "Fascism for Socialism." Socialists wouldn't support fascism. But some fascists would support a non global socialist economy.

"Yes, I *did* say that a 'violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status' has nothing to do with socialism. It's right there, above." So then why did you mention that a 'violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status' has nothing to do with socialism in the first place?

"No, fascism is politically *incompatible* with socialism." Wrong.

"No, they're not -- Stalinism is *revisionist* because it abandons working class collective self-activity, in favor of retreating to more bourgeois-like norms, like the nation-state entity, for participation in bourgeois geopolitics, as under Stalin." Stop crying.

"No, I'm not. I'm all for the world's working class and its potential to collectively control society's means of mass industrial production." Even those reactionaries who go against socialism? You want them to be in your model? So that they can help destroy your model and that you can cry as usual?

"No, I don't and you haven't referenced anything from me that goes along with this spurious, erroneous political line." So in your model, what are you going to do if a Muslim extremist goes up to you or your mom, and says: "Death to communism, death to the Jews" (Muslim extremists believe that Jews CREATED socialism to rule the world under a fooling, Zionist rule) "Long live the sacrifices of our families. Allah Akbar!"?

"Nope, incorrect again." Yeah you do you're just not proud of it lol.

Why are you a socialist? And why should someone support your politics? I mean seriously, a Muslim reactionary or an American Tea Party supporter makes more sense than you! And it's not because I am in the right, it's because their views are so different than mine, yet I can UNDERSTAND (not agree) them more than you! You're not persuasive at all.
#14979414
SSDR wrote:
Stalinism is a kind of socialism, and socialism doesn't have to be international. And I keep explaining to you why.


No you don't, you know it, and everyone who has been following this thread knows very well that you don't explain what you say. Repeating your statements, accompanied by insulting your opponent by calling them 'manipulative' or implying that they're weak because they 'won't last' in a supposedly Stalinist Facebook Page; don't make what you say any truer, or clearer to the readers.

As I mentioned before, your arguments are mainly rhetoric and full of unjustified slogans. Since you don't have sufficient understandings, or the necessary logic to win the approval of your audience, you therefore feel the need to fill this gap by using the direct words like: 'I am', 'I am not', 'this is so'; 'that is WRONG', and so forth; so you may find yourself some kind of pseudo ‘authority’ in such a way.
Another example of such:
SSDR wrote:
Private property, capitalist currency, and internationalism are not linked with each other.


An impartial reader would say: Okay, fair enough. Let’s see how s/he explains this; what are their reasons for saying these phenomena are not linked with each other.
The reader would then search throughout your posts in this thread, but unfortunately will find no logical reasoning and clarifications to back this argument; only more repetitions, accompanied by unrelated, and at points contradicting statements which can only highlight your unfounded, manipulative ways.
An example:

ckaihatsu wrote:
Just because some kind of *nationalization* takes place doesn't mean that it automatically 'has socialist roots'. You're completely ignoring the *politics* of fascism, which is for violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status.


SSDR wrote:
And a "violent persecution based on social/racial/ethnic status" has NOTHING to do with socialism. Capitalists and reactionaries are enemies of socialism, so for them to be 'persecuted' in a socialist society is not anti socialist.


SSDR wrote:
Race has NOTHING to do with socialism. What if the whole world was one race? Skin colour has no connection to socialism. And most people have some prejudice or hatred to at least one ethnicity. You have to be honest.



Yes, the whole world 'is' one race - Human Race - and this has everything to do with Socialism!

You may or may not be a sworn Fascist, you may not be actively involved with a Fascist group / organisation; but with the beliefs as such, with trying to promote national, racial and genic differentiations as the basis for the should-be domineering politics; you’re only doing what a Fascist would do. Either knowingly or unknowingly, these ideas nurture Fascism, even if the bearer of the ideas himself / herself be a victim of this dangerous, most inhumane political ideology.
#14979510
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I did provide at least one link before, you're just refusing to look back.



So give me a link to the post that contains the link.


SSDR wrote:
It's not impossible to have different kinds of modes of production in the world. Capitalism and feudalism existed in the same planet in the 1800's. And both capitalist and feudalist countries traded with each other at the time.



But it's not *desirable*, nor sustainable -- hence politics.


SSDR wrote:
The reason why what you're saying makes no sense is because your responses aren't replying to what I or to what others are saying/asking to you. You also tend to twist words because you know you're not correct.



No, *you're* not correct, and you're just being contrarian again.


SSDR wrote:
Marx was a revolutionary. Marxists were also revolutionary. People like Stalin, Trotsky, or Mao who added their own stuff in the Marxist ideology is NOT "creative" it's revolutionary because different conditions require different solutions.



No, what you're describing is called 'branding', for the sake of political marketing.

The world hasn't yet re-accomplished the formation of *soviets* (workers councils), for social production.


SSDR wrote:
That's why some socialists such as myself or even Marx himself call themselves "scientific socialists" because socialism is scientifically based.



But you're not a socialist, nor scientific. Now what are you gonna do? (grin)


SSDR wrote:
Depending on the technologies that are available, if society is religious or not (you claim that there are religious revolutionaries),




Liberation theology is a synthesis of Christian theology and Marxist socio-economic analyses that emphasizes social concern for the poor and the political liberation for oppressed peoples.[1]



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



---


SSDR wrote:
or eugenics (again I don't think that socialism is for everyone, or Swedes have different standards than Somalians) a different or modified form of socialism may be required. What kind of socialist society that needs to exist today won't be the same as what kind of socialism would need to exist in the 1950's or the 1870's. Marx lived in the 19th century, so for you to be a die heart crying Marxist is useless because we're not in the 19th century anymore. We have the internet, more automated technology, more medicine, more knowledge on politics, and a better understanding on what Islam is from either a western, or a revolutionary viewpoint, Which means that Marx never knew what the Islamic world was really about, and due to him not knowing because Germany or Britain never had mass Islamic immigration, he thought that socialism could purely work globally with the Muslim world, not realizing that the Muslim world has different standards than the west. Which means that Islam is NOT capable of revolutionary socialism, or Marxism. Unlike Marx, his time period didn't have a global internet, nor advanced AI.



And yet the class divide still exists, and wage-slavery is the mode of production of today.


SSDR wrote:
I am a scientific socialist. You're not a scientific socialist. You're an ultraleftist anarchist.



And on what do you base this erroneous conclusion of yours?

(Should've posted the following diagram earlier.)


Consciousness, A Material Definition

Spoiler: show
Image



---


SSDR wrote:
It's not "socialism for fascism" it's "Fascism for Socialism." Socialists wouldn't support fascism. But some fascists would support a non global socialist economy.



A 'non-global socialist economy' -- like a stripeless zebra, huh? (Haha....)

You know what? At this point I'd really like to hear how the administration of your proposed micro-nation would be composed and function. But you're giving me a lot of laughs already, here, so I won't hold you to it.


SSDR wrote:
"Yes, I *did* say that a 'violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status' has nothing to do with socialism. It's right there, above." So then why did you mention that a 'violent persecution based on social / racial / ethnic status' has nothing to do with socialism in the first place?



Go back and review. It's all there.


SSDR wrote:
"No, fascism is politically *incompatible* with socialism." Wrong.



You know, you're sticking to these *empirical* points to the extent of sounding *political* (ideological) about them. Better watch yourself.

Here's another diagram -- note how the revolutionary-leftist, and fascist, extents are ideologically *opposite* each other:


Ideologies & Operations -- Left Centrifugalism

Spoiler: show
Image



---


SSDR wrote:
"No, they're not -- Stalinism is *revisionist* because it abandons working class collective self-activity, in favor of retreating to more bourgeois-like norms, like the nation-state entity, for participation in bourgeois geopolitics, as under Stalin." Stop crying.



No tears here -- check *yourself*.


SSDR wrote:
"No, I'm not. I'm all for the world's working class and its potential to collectively control society's means of mass industrial production." Even those reactionaries who go against socialism? You want them to be in your model? So that they can help destroy your model and that you can cry as usual?



No crying here. I don't support reactionaries.


SSDR wrote:
"No, I don't and you haven't referenced anything from me that goes along with this spurious, erroneous political line." So in your model, what are you going to do if a Muslim extremist goes up to you or your mom, and says: "Death to communism, death to the Jews" (Muslim extremists believe that Jews CREATED socialism to rule the world under a fooling, Zionist rule) "Long live the sacrifices of our families. Allah Akbar!"?



I'd tell them to read The Communist Manifesto. It's a quick read. (I'm anti-Zionist, anti-imperialist, btw.)

And why do you have a thing for my mom?


---


SSDR wrote:
"And, no, I don't misconstrue other people's ideas and statements, unlike you" Yeah you do you're just not proud of it lol.



ckaihatsu wrote:
Nope, incorrect again.



SSDR wrote:
Yeah you do you're just not proud of it lol.



Now you're misconstruing again. Perfect example.


SSDR wrote:
Why are you a socialist? And why should someone support your politics? I mean seriously, a Muslim reactionary or an American Tea Party supporter makes more sense than you! And it's not because I am in the right, it's because their views are so different than mine, yet I can UNDERSTAND (not agree) them more than you! You're not persuasive at all.



I'm not *trying* to persuade you, egomaniac.

Go ahead and be a reactionary Muslim Tea Party person -- see how far it gets you.
#14979683
@Stardust, I do know "it." Stalinism is a type of socialism. And me pointing out that someone is manipulating me doesn't make me insulting. You're calling that Stalinist facebook page false? Go on there and tell everyone there that. :lol:

You're complaining about me being "insulting" yet you're "insulting" me by calling me "manipulative."

You seem to strongly promote racial mixing. I am not saying that is wrong, but that makes you sound very Western and very Americanized. And you saying that fascism is the most dangerous ideology makes you sound like an ANARCHIST, rather than a socialist, because the opposite of fascism is not socialism. The opposite of fascism is anarchy.

But seriously though, your reply is almost useless and doesn't tell me why you are a "socialist" (you're really a western anarchist).
#14979691
@ckaihatsu, No, "You're" not correct, and you're just being contrarian again.

"But you're not a socialist, nor scientific. Now what are you gonna do? (grin)" I am a scientific socialist, and you making that reply makes you sound useless. I mean you asking me "Now what are you gonna do?" I am not trying to do anything so there's no need to get defensive lolol.

You're defending a "liberation theology" which makes you defend what was used to keep the poor oppressed and prevented the working class and slaves from rebelling. In a pure socialist society, religion does not need to exist.

"And yet the class divide still exists, and wage-slavery is the mode of production of today." I never said it didn't so as usual, you're giving useless shit.

"You know what? At this point I'd really like to hear how the administration of your proposed micro-nation would be composed and function. But you're giving me a lot of laughs already, here, so I won't hold you to it." I already explained in some of the previous posts.

"You know, you're sticking to these *empirical* points to the extent of sounding *political* (ideological) about them. Better watch yourself." What are you going to do if I don't? You telling me to "better watch yourself" makes you sound like a bossy, right wing person who gets offended by words because they have Christian leanings.

"No tears here -- check *yourself*." No crying here. I don't support reactionaries.

"Now you're misconstruing again. Perfect example." Nope, incorrect again.

And you're not answering why you are a socialist. I ask you a simple question, and you're not answering! How am I an egomaniac? Why would I want to be a "reactionary Muslim Tea Party person?" And that doesn't even make any sense. Reactionary Muslims and American Tea Party supporters usually don't like each other. So for you to mix that shows how unaware you really are. And you not being persuasive gives socialism a very unsupported look. Be part of the steps, NOT the falls.
#14979832
SSDR wrote:
@Stardust, I do know "it." Stalinism is a type of socialism. And me pointing out that someone is manipulating me doesn't make me insulting. You're calling that Stalinist facebook page false? Go on there and tell everyone there that. :lol:

You're complaining about me being "insulting" yet you're "insulting" me by calling me "manipulative."

You seem to strongly promote racial mixing. I am not saying that is wrong, but that makes you sound very Western and very Americanized. And you saying that fascism is the most dangerous ideology makes you sound like an ANARCHIST, rather than a socialist, because the opposite of fascism is not socialism. The opposite of fascism is anarchy.

But seriously though, your reply is almost useless and doesn't tell me why you are a "socialist" (you're really a western anarchist).




SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, No, "You're" not correct, and you're just being contrarian again.



Wow, I've never seen anyone put quotation marks around a pronoun referencing my person -- so my existence is dubious, then, you're saying -- ? (Haha....)

Your smearing of people's character, and outright *lies* about them, is absolutely *inappropriate* for a *political* discussion board. Stop your 'playground politics' immediately, because you're just wasting *your* time, and *my* time.


SSDR wrote:
"But you're not a socialist, nor scientific. Now what are you gonna do? (grin)" I am a scientific socialist, and you making that reply makes you sound useless. I mean you asking me "Now what are you gonna do?" I am not trying to do anything so there's no need to get defensive lolol.



Then you're not a socialist -- all you're doing is chattering based on a template of psychological *projection*, with insults sprinkled-in, careless misconstruings of others' positions, and insisting on your flawed micro-nation Stalinist 'vision'.


---


SSDR wrote:
Depending on the technologies that are available, if society is religious or not (you claim that there are religious revolutionaries),



ckaihatsu wrote:



Liberation theology is a synthesis of Christian theology and Marxist socio-economic analyses that emphasizes social concern for the poor and the political liberation for oppressed peoples.[1]



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



SSDR wrote:
You're defending a "liberation theology" which makes you defend what was used to keep the poor oppressed and prevented the working class and slaves from rebelling. In a pure socialist society, religion does not need to exist.



Well, I happen to agree that religion doesn't need to exist, but you're off on an invalid tangent here -- I'm not *defending* liberation theology -- merely noting that it *exists*.


---


SSDR wrote:
or eugenics (again I don't think that socialism is for everyone, or Swedes have different standards than Somalians) a different or modified form of socialism may be required. What kind of socialist society that needs to exist today won't be the same as what kind of socialism would need to exist in the 1950's or the 1870's. Marx lived in the 19th century, so for you to be a die heart crying Marxist is useless because we're not in the 19th century anymore. We have the internet, more automated technology, more medicine, more knowledge on politics, and a better understanding on what Islam is from either a western, or a revolutionary viewpoint, Which means that Marx never knew what the Islamic world was really about, and due to him not knowing because Germany or Britain never had mass Islamic immigration, he thought that socialism could purely work globally with the Muslim world, not realizing that the Muslim world has different standards than the west. Which means that Islam is NOT capable of revolutionary socialism, or Marxism. Unlike Marx, his time period didn't have a global internet, nor advanced AI.



ckaihatsu wrote:
And yet the class divide still exists, and wage-slavery is the mode of production of today.



SSDR wrote:
I never said it didn't so as usual, you're giving useless shit.



Well then you should be criticizing Western-Civilization 'American fundamentalism' as well as any Islamic political intentions for cultural hegemony, since it's simply a *rival* to the same. Culture guy.


SSDR wrote:
"You know what? At this point I'd really like to hear how the administration of your proposed micro-nation would be composed and function. But you're giving me a lot of laughs already, here, so I won't hold you to it." I already explained in some of the previous posts.



I'll be more specific: What would be the requirements for *membership* to the administration of your micro-nation conception?

Technocrat.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You know, you're sticking to these *empirical* points to the extent of sounding *political* (ideological) about them. Better watch yourself.



SSDR wrote:
What are you going to do if I don't? You telling me to "better watch yourself" makes you sound like a bossy, right wing person who gets offended by words because they have Christian leanings.



You're *stereotyping*, and you're off-base. I was giving *friendly advice*.


---


SSDR wrote:
"No tears here -- check *yourself*." No crying here. I don't support reactionaries.



You're imputing that I'm a reactionary, yet you can *never* back-up your baseless contentions with any evidence from what I've said.


SSDR wrote:
"Now you're misconstruing again. Perfect example." Nope, incorrect again.



*You're* incorrect. *You're* the one who misconstrues, repeatedly.


SSDR wrote:
And you're not answering why you are a socialist. I ask you a simple question, and you're not answering!



I have *no interest* in complying with your requests since you ignore all of *my* requests for information / clarification about *your* politics.


SSDR wrote:
How am I an egomaniac?



Because you simply *project* your careless misconstruings onto others like myself.


SSDR wrote:
Why would I want to be a "reactionary Muslim Tea Party person?" And that doesn't even make any sense. Reactionary Muslims and American Tea Party supporters usually don't like each other. So for you to mix that shows how unaware you really are. And you not being persuasive gives socialism a very unsupported look. Be part of the steps, NOT the falls.



You're not an authority figure here -- you don't *get* to judge others, like myself, on who's a good-student, and who's not. This isn't fucking school, Stalinist-authoritarian, and I'm not trying to "persuade" you.
#14979918
@ckaihatsu, Well you saying "Wow, I've never seen anyone put quotation marks around a pronoun referencing my person" Makes you sound very Christian and very conservative leaning. You talking about general grammar is useless.

"Stop your 'playground politics' immediately, because you're just wasting *your* time, and *my* time." What the fuck are you gonna do? lol

"careless misconstruings of others' positions, and insisting on your flawed micro-nation Stalinist 'vision'." Stalinism is a type of socialism, and I am not a Stalinist.

"Well then you should be criticizing Western-Civilization 'American fundamentalism' as well as any Islamic political intentions for cultural hegemony, since it's simply a *rival* to the same. Culture guy." I am strongly against American fundamentalism and Islamic political intentions. "Culture guy" yeah dude that makes no sense lol.

"I'll be more specific: What would be the requirements for *membership* to the administration of your micro-nation conception?" Be a clean, hard working Socialist who cares about others, and is individualistic so that everyone can have their own freedom. No anarchists. And no right wingers. And no people who can't make decent responses such as you. :lol:

"You're *stereotyping*, and you're off-base. I was giving *friendly advice*." I'm stereotyping for telling you that you appear to be somewhat bossy? You're using political correctness to defend yourself. And you telling me "better watch yourself" is not that friendly. And you're "off base" ... Big time.

"You're imputing that I'm a reactionary, yet you can *never* back-up your baseless contentions with any evidence from what I've said." Why are you telling me that my contentions are somewhat "useless?" That's prejudice.

"*You're* incorrect. *You're* the one who misconstrues, repeatedly." Prooooove it.

"I have *no interest* in complying with your requests since you ignore all of *my* requests for information / clarification about *your* politics." Well shit that's because most of your statements make NO sense and that they don't fuckin add up.

"Because you simply *project* your careless misconstruings onto others like myself." Then realize that bitching about it won't do anything.

"You're not an authority figure here -- you don't *get* to judge others, like myself, on who's a good-student, and who's not. This isn't fucking school, Stalinist-authoritarian, and I'm not trying to "persuade" you." Aww waldo's tryna act tough lol. You're trying to manipulate me lol.

But seriously though - Why are you a socialist?
#14980090
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, Well you saying "Wow, I've never seen anyone put quotation marks around a pronoun referencing my person" Makes you sound very Christian and very conservative leaning. You talking about general grammar is useless.



What are you trying to *accomplish* here, SSDR -- ? All you're doing is playing *games* around identity politics.


SSDR wrote:
"Stop your 'playground politics' immediately, because you're just wasting *your* time, and *my* time." What the fuck are you gonna do? lol



I'm going to point out that you're not even around any real *politics* at all -- you're just being contrarian, and often even against *my person*. Just don't bother -- you're not *nearly* serious enough to be on a forum like this one.


SSDR wrote:
"careless misconstruings of others' positions, and insisting on your flawed micro-nation Stalinist 'vision'." Stalinism is a type of socialism, and I am not a Stalinist.



What *are* you then, when you don't even discuss politics here -- ? A 'state collectivist' -- ? A fascist.


SSDR wrote:
"Well then you should be criticizing Western-Civilization 'American fundamentalism' as well as any Islamic political intentions for cultural hegemony, since it's simply a *rival* to the same. Culture guy." I am strongly against American fundamentalism and Islamic political intentions. "Culture guy" yeah dude that makes no sense lol.



Okay, so you should be railing against American fundamentalism / imperialism as much as you do against Islamist-sectarian bids to power.


SSDR wrote:
"I'll be more specific: What would be the requirements for *membership* to the administration of your micro-nation conception?" Be a clean, hard working Socialist who cares about others, and is individualistic so that everyone can have their own freedom. No anarchists. And no right wingers. And no people who can't make decent responses such as you. :lol:



Jeeeezus you're funny. That's how you make your living, huh? Ya tell *jokes*!

And who *decides* who 'gets-in' and who doesn't? You?

What kinds of political *duties* would these administrators have?


SSDR wrote:
"You're *stereotyping*, and you're off-base. I was giving *friendly advice*." I'm stereotyping for telling you that you appear to be somewhat bossy? You're using political correctness to defend yourself. And you telling me "better watch yourself" is not that friendly. And you're "off base" ... Big time.



No, I'm not a conservative or reactionary, contrary to your contrariness.


SSDR wrote:
"You're imputing that I'm a reactionary, yet you can *never* back-up your baseless contentions with any evidence from what I've said." Why are you telling me that my contentions are somewhat "useless?" That's prejudice.



It's *not* prejudice when there's a lack of any tangible evidence coming from you.


SSDR wrote:
"*You're* incorrect. *You're* the one who misconstrues, repeatedly." Prooooove it.



Go back and review.


SSDR wrote:
"I have *no interest* in complying with your requests since you ignore all of *my* requests for information / clarification about *your* politics." Well shit that's because most of your statements make NO sense and that they don't fuckin add up.



Go back and review -- you're just being knee-jerk *dismissive* and not-looking at any issues.


SSDR wrote:
"Because you simply *project* your careless misconstruings onto others like myself." Then realize that bitching about it won't do anything.



I'm *not* bitching about it -- here's an example of your erroneous guesswork again, btw.

I was simply *pointing it out*. Thanks for admitting it, though.


SSDR wrote:
"You're not an authority figure here -- you don't *get* to judge others, like myself, on who's a good-student, and who's not. This isn't fucking school, Stalinist-authoritarian, and I'm not trying to "persuade" you." Aww waldo's tryna act tough lol. You're trying to manipulate me lol.



Defensive much?


SSDR wrote:
But seriously though - Why are you a socialist?



But seriously though -- why don't you drop your shitty attitude? Maybe a discussion will actually *get somewhere* that way.
#14980120
Tainari88 wrote:Hmmm. Both my parents were born in Puerto Rico (I also was born in Puerto Rico), and they grew up partly in New York City (in the worst of the ghettos of NYC. Were poor as can be but got advanced educations and moved to Southern California, (San Diego) where I lived for a bunch of my growing up years. Then I went back to Puerto Rico as a young woman and lived there and in Mexico too. Both my parents were international socialists and politics were spoken about in our daily lives. Few people know that socialists are quite common on the left side of the political spectrum in Spanish speaking Latin American countries TIG. But they are. The USA had a 'cleansing' of the socialist types long ago. Latin America and many countries in Europe and in Africa have a strong socialist mainstream presence. In the USA we are few.

I have come to realize white liberals are not friends of Latin American socialists. For me the left and the right in the USA are really not much different. They are from the same boring culture of white people with money and bad values of consumerism and lack of understanding of how the rest of the world lives. In that they are astoundingly consistent.
\

The question was how you became a socialist not how you became a racist bigot.
#14980145
:lol: You are still sore about losing the debate in the Hurricane Maria thread. Lol.

@Finfinder

What a prideful little man you are! :lol:

I don't respect men like you. Not today, tomorrow or ever. No sense of equality for others not of your class, money and background.

Does it still rankle you then? Wanting to change my 'tone'? You can't.

You are sore loser who is always holding on to his tattered and battered pride.

This is what I think you deserve:

Learn something, enjoy life, let go of being hurt mortally by a 'tone' in a thread:

Relax, the victory is mine I know.....but you don't have to take it personally:

Calm yourself little man, hee hee hee



#14980170
SSDR wrote:@Stardust, I do know "it." Stalinism is a type of socialism. And me pointing out that someone is manipulating me doesn't make me insulting. You're calling that Stalinist facebook page false? Go on there and tell everyone there that. :lol:

You're complaining about me being "insulting" yet you're "insulting" me by calling me "manipulative."

You seem to strongly promote racial mixing. I am not saying that is wrong, but that makes you sound very Western and very Americanized. And you saying that fascism is the most dangerous ideology makes you sound like an ANARCHIST, rather than a socialist, because the opposite of fascism is not socialism. The opposite of fascism is anarchy.

But seriously though, your reply is almost useless and doesn't tell me why you are a "socialist" (you're really a western anarchist).


More of the same old story: “I do know it”, implying: “You do not!”, “I am not…”, “You are…” – With no clarifications, or any logical answers.

Before, you claimed that I was a follower of Rosa Luxemburg; and now that has taken a shift to Anarchism. Wow… you should be really enjoying this freedom you entitle yourself to; calling and branding people as you wish, and changing your mind practically at any single post. Great job, Big efforts!

We don’t have to be anarchists, or at the end of the spectrum opposite to ‘authority’; in order to realise the inhumane character of Fascism. History has not forgotten the crimes done by the direct rule of Fascism both; before and during the 2nd world war. It’s there for us to see, all that is needed is open eyes…

SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu… You're defending a "liberation theology" which makes you defend what was used to keep the poor oppressed and prevented the working class and slaves from rebelling. In a pure socialist society, religion does not need to exist.


Firstly, you still haven’t explained exactly what you mean by Pure Socialist Society. You have made this term up; so you need to explain in exact terms, how a Pure Socialist society differs from a Socialist society as advocated by its original founders.

Secondly, it is true that in the future socialist society, religion does not need to exist; but that is circumstantial, and it is not meant to be established through coercive rules and measures (as in a Fascist ruled society).

Marx did mention that Religion is the Opium of the masses, in the introduction of his book called “A contribution to the critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right” in 1843:

"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people".

Which clearly refers to the hardships and the unideal circumstances that drive the oppressed masses towards the ideologies without material basis; the metaphysical views in which those ideal conditions, and the perfect life are promised to exist only in another world; hence inviting people to be submissive to that authority; that ultimate ‘power’ God, and be such and such, so if things don’t change while still being alive; it won’t matter, because there’s a much better life waiting for them in another.

This also implicitly, refers to the need for those circumstances leading to such beliefs to be targeted, by the socialists and the revolutionaries; while concurrently trying to inform and enlighten the society about the realities of their lives, and the facts behind their beliefs… There is never a reference to the need for the coercive measures to achieve this end; because that will not work in the long run; and also simply because once those destructive circumstances that drive the masses towards religions and / or other unscientific ideologies; the need for that Opium will also be gradually and organically eliminated.

SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, No, "You're" not correct, and you're just being contrarian again.

"But you're not a socialist, nor scientific. Now what are you gonna do? (grin)"…

“…Why would I want to be a "reactionary Muslim Tea Party person?" And that doesn't even make any sense. Reactionary Muslims and American Tea Party supporters usually don't like each other. So for you to mix that shows how unaware you really are. And you not being persuasive gives socialism a very unsupported look. Be part of the steps, NOT the falls.”


Another example of you being contradictory – if someone is not a Socialist, nor Scientific; then how come his not being persuasive gives Socialism a very unsupported look..?

- More projections, and labelling expected… :rainbow:
#14980231
@ckaihatsu, I am not trying to "accomplish" anything. There really is no point in that. We are just having a political discussion or dialogue. I am not playing games (or at least I am not trying to play games, you're probably thinking I am because you may or may not be paranoid).

"Just don't bother -- you're not *nearly* serious enough to be on a forum like this one." You have no power to say that, nor back that up.

"What *are* you then, when you don't even discuss politics here -- ? A 'state collectivist' -- ? A fascist." I am a scientific socialist that supports some elements of state collectivism, since that is a form of socialism. I am not a fascist.

"Okay, so you should be railing against American fundamentalism / imperialism as much as you do against Islamist-sectarian bids to power." Yes that would be correct.

"Jeeeezus you're funny. That's how you make your living, huh? Ya tell *jokes*!" lol that was weak asf dude.

"What kinds of political *duties* would these administrators have?" Coordinate production, stop and destroy crime and terrorism, and handle all non socialists properly.

"But seriously though -- why don't you drop your shitty attitude? Maybe a discussion will actually *get somewhere* that way." That doesn't answer why you are a socialist? I ask you a simple question, yet you're still not responding! And my "attitude is not shitty" you thinking that makes you sound very religious. And this discussion doesn't need to get anywhere. We're just talking :)
#14980235
@Stardust, "Great job, Big efforts!" Yeah I know.

I am not a supporter of fascism, I am against fascism.

A pure socialist society is a society where no one is ruled by another, currency, social hierarchy, borders within the socialist society, family, nor religion. Each person can fully live their lives and choose their destinies and be free! There is no medium of exchange. And the concept of value does not exist. In pure socialism, no human is oppressed by another. No one needs nurturement, and that people only use each other without the nurturement, since nurturement can cause oppression.

Religion can exist on a personal level. But at a public level, it must be destroyed.

"Another example of you being contradictory – if someone is not a Socialist, nor Scientific; then how come his not being persuasive gives Socialism a very unsupported look..?" Because your partner's responses don't add up, and he seems to make up shit a lot.

Anyways, death to oppression. Long live the liberations of our hearts.
#14980389
SSDR wrote:
@ckaihatsu, I am not trying to "accomplish" anything. There really is no point in that. We are just having a political discussion or dialogue. I am not playing games (or at least I am not trying to play games, you're probably thinking I am because you may or may not be paranoid).



I'm saying you're playing-games because you really seem to be *avoiding* political discussion here. Several times you've tried to divert the discussion to *personal* characterizations, which *aren't* political whatsoever.


SSDR wrote:
"Just don't bother -- you're not *nearly* serious enough to be on a forum like this one." You have no power to say that, nor back that up.



(See the previous.)


SSDR wrote:
"What *are* you then, when you don't even discuss politics here -- ? A 'state collectivist' -- ? A fascist." I am a scientific socialist that supports some elements of state collectivism, since that is a form of socialism. I am not a fascist.


SSDR wrote:
"Okay, so you should be railing against American fundamentalism / imperialism as much as you do against Islamist-sectarian bids to power." Yes that would be correct.


SSDR wrote:
"Jeeeezus you're funny. That's how you make your living, huh? Ya tell *jokes*!" lol that was weak asf dude.



Egomaniac, this isn't about *you* -- it's about your *politics*, and, no, I'm not trying to impress you.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
And who *decides* who 'gets-in' and who doesn't? You?

What kinds of political *duties* would these administrators have?



SSDR wrote:
Coordinate production, stop and destroy crime and terrorism, and handle all non socialists properly.



You omitted the 'And who *decides*...' line from your quoting -- you're not answering my questions, so I'm not going to answer *yours*, as in the next block:


SSDR wrote:
"But seriously though -- why don't you drop your shitty attitude? Maybe a discussion will actually *get somewhere* that way." That doesn't answer why you are a socialist? I ask you a simple question, yet you're still not responding! And my "attitude is not shitty" you thinking that makes you sound very religious. And this discussion doesn't need to get anywhere. We're just talking :)



So: How would your concept of 'administration' operate regarding its own membership and members?

You've straight-out denied being a Stalinist, so how would this authoritarian-state-collectivism administration compose itself through time, into the future?
#14980535
@ckaihatsu, I am not avoiding any political discussion. I am making responses to most of your statements or questions. YOU'RE avoiding the political discussion because you keep twisting words, your responses are not responding to what I am saying, and you're still not answering my question: Why are you a socialist? Is it that hard to answer?

"Egomaniac, this isn't about *you* -- it's about your *politics*, and, no, I'm not trying to impress you." Well you keep twisting words, I never said that you were trying to impress me. You see how you're once again, twisting words.

"You omitted the 'And who *decides*...' line from your quoting -- you're not answering my questions, so I'm not going to answer *yours*, as in the next block:" Those who work for the socialist state/administration would decide who "gets in" and "gets out." Anyone can get in as long as they work, don't cause trouble, don't attempt to rebel, or cause terrorism such as planting bombs in subway stations. Now, answer mine.

"So: How would your concept of 'administration' operate regarding its own membership and members?" In terms of who's in it, well the existing members would do various interviews, psychological tests, political tests, basic written assessments, and once the people who want to join pass, they then go through various trainings, and take lots of psychological lessons/classes so that they don't get corrupt. The members are confidential, NO ONE is famed, and no one is allowed to know who's in my socialist administration to protect their privacy and personal lives. Any member who gets corrupt, is abusive, or shows favouritism will be removed immediately.

You've straight-out denied being a Stalinist, so how would this authoritarian-state-collectivism administration compose itself through time, into the future? Corruption and abuse will be prevented as much as possible. Anyone who abuses the administrative position in society, or anyone who abuses the socialist system in general, will be removed. You cannot change someone. If you try to change them, they will think that you're "brainwashing" them (just like how neo-Nazis think that socialists are brainwashing people through the ZOG, or how religious fundamentals think that socialists are brainwashing believers into worshipping a rebellious satan). Non socialists cannot live in a socialist society. They must be removed from the society, or else they could rebel or react against socialism, and cause crime (neo Nazi crime rising in the DDR during the 1980's).

The socialist state will make sure that everyone that has administrative power, is a socialist to the heart! Death to slavery. Long live freedom.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 14
EU-BREXIT

Our dear and beloved GB has finally left us after […]

The Next UK PM everybody...

Do any of you actually live in the UK? Just wonder[…]

See, now that’s a dialogue! Touché Denmark.

Amazon rainforest fires: Macron calls for G7 tal[…]