Atheism is Evil - Page 20 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By anasawad
#15012976
@SSDR
Throwing around the words sexist, oppressive, etc wont help you here.
I didn't defend anything that is sexist or oppressive or any of this bullshit. You claiming I did stands for nothing if you don't bother presenting an argument.

Instead of throwing around buzz words, present an actual arguement.

Socialists=/= Marxists.

Family is now oppressive?
Scientific facts are sexist?
Stating that males and females are biologically different is not sexist, stating that these biological differences result in different behaviors and preferences is not sexist, its just facts.


Again, throwing around buzz words and saying everyone is wrong isn't an argument.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012977
@anasawad,

I am not throwing words "around." You believing that makes you sound very Christian.

"Any of this bullshit," you sound very distorted. For you to claim that socialism is "bullshit" yet you call yourself a "socialist?"

You have FAITH in the ruling family institutions. You're defending sex realism/scientific sexism. These are not socialist standpoints.
By anasawad
#15012982
@SSDR
You are throwing words around since you're not presenting any argument.
I did not claim socialism is bullshit, for how long will we be playing this game where I say something, you completely twist it, and I have to correct you on the post right above?

You're confusing cultural Marxism with socialism.
Socialism is an economic system, a purely economic system. That's why there are so many types of socialists; Because there is no single political structure attached to socialism.
Marxism, which is what you apparently seem to follow, on the other hand, is indeed bullshit in my opinion. Especially the new identitarian brands of it.

No worries, I know you'll twist this as well.

There is no such thing as the "ruling family institutions". The world today, especially the developed world, is socially liberal, each family is its own thing.
Family structures are not oppressive. If in a set of countries centuries ago the state acted through the family, that does not mean families by default become oppressive everywhere everytime. Believing that is at best naive.

Science, by definition, can not be sexist, racist, etc. It's objective.
I will state again that scientific facts, irregardless of how many times or years you might want to circle around this, are always objective and neutral. How one or group uses these facts is where there can be sexism or racism, etc
Stating the men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and as such have different behavioral trends and preferences is not sexist, it's a scientific fact. No matter how much you don't like that.
If someone tried to use this fact to legitimize taking or giving rights for either sexes, then his\her behavior can be stated to be sexist. Sure.
But stating the facts can never ever be sexist or racist or prejudiced or whatever.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15012983
anasawad wrote:@SSDR
You are throwing words around since you're not presenting any argument.
I did not claim socialism is bullshit, for how long will we be playing this game where I say something, you completely twist it, and I have to correct you on the post right above?

You're confusing cultural Marxism with socialism.
Socialism is an economic system, a purely economic system. That's why there are so many types of socialists; Because there is no single political structure attached to socialism.
Marxism, which is what you apparently seem to follow, on the other hand, is indeed bullshit in my opinion. Especially the new identitarian brands of it.

No worries, I know you'll twist this as well.

There is no such thing as the "ruling family institutions". The world today, especially the developed world, is socially liberal, each family is its own thing.
Family structures are not oppressive. If in a set of countries centuries ago the state acted through the family, that does not mean families by default become oppressive everywhere everytime. Believing that is at best naive.

Science, by definition, can not be sexist, racist, etc. It's objective.
I will state again that scientific facts, irregardless of how many times or years you might want to circle around this, are always objective and neutral. How one or group uses these facts is where there can be sexism or racism, etc
Stating the men and women are biologically and psychologically different, and as such have different behavioral trends and preferences is not sexist, it's a scientific fact. No matter how much you don't like that.
If someone tried to use this fact to legitimize taking or giving rights for either sexes, then his\her behavior can be stated to be sexist. Sure.
But stating the facts can never ever be sexist or racist or prejudiced or whatever.


How can a human throw a "word?" No one is playing games with you. No one really wants to play with you. You're just getting your paranoid hopes up.

Socialism is an economic system. So why are you a socialist? And what economic definition of socialism are you using? In other words, what is your ideal socialist economy?

"Marxism" is a social construct created by socialists and non/anti socialists because when revolutionary socialism first was collectively popular in the second half of the 19th century, many people thought it made no sense, it was insane, bizarre, and even "mentally ill!" Marx was a doctor of whom was educated in some of the most advanced empires at the time. So any scientific or revolutionary socialist had to use the term "Marxist" so that they wouldn't be shunned by some reactionary like @Truth To Power. No one can follow "Marxism." Anyone who claims to follow "Marxism," or "believes in socialism" is not a socialist.

"No worries?" Your emotional tantrums are not effective. Your emotional ways of thinking make you sound conservative, and sound like you were brainwashed by capitalist tools such as religion or emotional constructs.

Science can be racist or sexist. Race realism is an example. Now, I am very much for science, but science can be used by the right wingers like @Truth To Power.

You're not stating any facts. Your bitching from capitalist tools that were used to prevent, and to destroy socialist realizations.
By anasawad
#15012991
@SSDR
How can a human throw a "word?" No one is playing games with you. No one really wants to play with you. You're just getting your paranoid hopes up.

Sure, let's be clearer.
When I say you're throwing buzz words, what I mean is that when you keep throwing around the words sexist, oppressive, etc and calling everything sexist and oppressive, that's using strawman points and ad hominems, not presenting an argument.

Socialism is an economic system. So why are you a socialist? And what economic definition of socialism are you using? In other words, what is your ideal socialist economy?

Primary ideals:
Social (direct, not mediated) ownership of the resources and means of production. Base standard across the field.
Fair, not equal, distribution of resources above the base standard. Social liberty achieved through economic liberty, which itself achieved through the previous principles.
I believe the system should be structured to achieve fairness, reward hard work, guarantees economic security and liberty, and guarantee social liberties.

For how, I've discussed my policies and politics many times elsewhere in this forum, no need to waste time repeating here.

"Marxism" is a social construct created by socialists and non/anti socialists because when revolutionary socialism first was collectively popular in the second half of the 19th century, many people thought it made no sense, it was insane, bizarre, and even "mentally ill!" Marx was a doctor of whom was educated in some of the most advanced empires at the time. So any scientific or revolutionary socialist had to use the term "Marxist" so that they wouldn't be shunned by some reactionary like @Truth To Power. No one can follow "Marxism." Anyone who claims to follow "Marxism," or "believes in socialism" is not a socialist.

Socialism is a base economic model, it's not a set of policies. What it is is literally in the name.

Marxism is a political and social set of principles. I agree with some, disagree with others of it.
The part you're provoking is that of class struggle. I disagree with that.
Personal wealth should not be restricted if fairly earned.
Society will always have hierarchies, if not through economic means then through other means like expertise, etc.
A fair and just society does not, and can not be achieved through injustice.
And a classless society can not be achieved in general since humans are biologically driven to establish hierarchies.

"No worries?" Your emotional tantrums are not effective. Your emotional ways of thinking make you sound conservative, and sound like you were brainwashed by capitalist tools such as religion or emotional constructs.

Meh.
Conservatives will say I'm brainwashed by lefties, and lefties will say I'm brainwashed by conservatives.
How shocking.

Science can be racist or sexist.

It can't. Science is inherently beyond good and evil, beyond discrimination, beyond prejudice, beyond everything human. It is objective.

Race realism is an example.

Race realism is some bullshit psuedo science that far right lunatics created to masquerade their racism as scientific.
It's not, and their claims have been discredited countless times.

Now, I am very much for science, but science can be used by the right wingers like @Truth To Power.

Someone using science to justify their positions is reflective of them.
Science itself is not on anyone's side.

You're not stating any facts.

I am stating facts, and not very complex ones really, rather easily proven and observable facts that we can see in application all around us, with immense amounts of evidence supporting it.

Your bitching from capitalist tools that were used to prevent, and to destroy socialist realizations.

If by capitalist tools you mean my laptop, then I'm sorry to tell you that you're using those tools as well.

So far though, I'm not the one bitching, you're the one complaining how everything is sexist and oppressive. I'm merely pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about. :lol:

For the whole "destroying socialist realizations". That's just more bullshit.
The soviet union wasn't destroyed by capitalism, it was destroyed by corruption and tyrannic abuses of power within it.
The various "socialist" states we've been seeing going around are ones where a handful few on top control everything and oppress everyone. That's not socialism honey, that concentration of power and wealth within a state is what is usually referred to as fascism.
Venezuela isn't being "destroyed" by capitalism, it's being destroyed by the corruption, incompetence, lack of far thought, and abuse of power of its ruling class.
The same pretty much applies to most other so-called socialist states.
If anything, socialism so far has been a theoretical ideal rather than an applied one.

And personally, I also lean towards pragmatism. If at some point I came to believe that the ideals I wish to see in a system can be achieved more successfully in a system other than socialism, I'll follow that instead, because I care about principles more than ideologies.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013004
@anasawad,

Social hierarchies such as patriarchy were created by capitalists to prevent them from gaining real consciousness. Why do you support a socialist economy? What is your personal purpose of it?

Science is bi partisan. Science can be on the left or on the right. There are many political ideologies that support science. Marxism Leninism supports science. Liberalism supports science. Nazism supports science. These three ideologies are very different from each other. You're supporting patriarchy, and you're using science to support your non socialist belief. This is a right wing action.

Your evidence is all LIES.

Laptops were not made to destroy socialism.

You're calling the Soviet Union fascist? So not only are you a sexist, but you're also a libertarian!

You're a sexist libertarian. :eek:
By anasawad
#15013005
@SSDR
Social hierarchies such as patriarchy were created by capitalists to prevent them from gaining real consciousness

It's not. Rather, capitalism is one of many possible manifestations of human tendencies.
Hierarchies are instinctual to most mammals. We're mammals.
Capitalism is hierarchy based on wealth, if money ceased to exist then societies will replace it with hierarchies based on another social currency.
Money is both a social currency and a medium of value exchange. Expertise, wisdom, beauty, information about others (gossip basically), respect, etc are also forms of social currencies along with many others.

Why do you support a socialist economy? What is your personal purpose of it?

Because I believe it's a just and fair economy.

Science is bi partisan. Science can be on the left or on the right. There are many political ideologies that support science. Marxism Leninism supports science. Liberalism supports science. Nazism supports science. These three ideologies are very different from each other.

A political group using science or psuedo science in its propaganda to justify its means and ends is reflective of that group, not science.

You're supporting patriarchy, and you're using science to support your non socialist belief. This is a right wing action.

And that is a strawman.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.


You're supporting patriarchy

I Don't.
you're using science to support your non socialist belief

I didn't, and my views are not "non socialist".
Socialism is an economic system, it does not address social or political principles or structures.

This is a right wing action.

It isn't.
And as far as I can see it, in view of far left liberals, feminists, "progressives", anyone who disagree with them is right wing. So it's not really unexpected from you.

Your evidence is all LIES.

You care to provide sufficient evidence to debunk the scientific consensus regarding dimorphism in humans?

You're calling the Soviet Union fascist? So not only are you a sexist, but you're also a libertarian!

Both my parents and much of my close family lived in the soviet union, I know what it was like from the inside. It wasn't socialist, it was a group of political leaders controlling everything and having all the wealth, while the people were free to starve and suffer in poverty.
Yes, the soviet union had much more in common with Fascist Italy than with a socialistic system.

You're a sexist libertarian. :eek:

How surprising, a radical feminist calling everyone who disagrees with them sexist.
Also, ad hominem.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013006
@anasawad,

You're now claiming that there is a "fixed human nature" which no socialist will ever claim because anti socialists believe that socialism goes against "fixed human nature."

Money is a tool created by elites to keep people in a certain control. "Expertise, wisdom, beauty, information about others (gossip basically), respect, etc," is what many capitalists and other non socialists value.

"Because I believe it's a just and fair economy. "

- There is nothing to believe. No socialist would be a socialist because they "believe." And what does fairness have to do with socialism? Fairness is a social construct. Some people believe that being owned as a slave is "fair." Some people believe that women being ruled by men is "fair out of protection."

"A political group using science or psuedo science in its propaganda to justify its means and ends is reflective of that group, not science."

- And that's EXACTLY what YOU are doing!

If socialism in your false mind doesn't have any political agenda, then why should one support a socialist economy?

I am not a "radical feminist." For you to falsely believe that makes you sound very right winged.
By anasawad
#15013012
@SSDR
You're now claiming that there is a "fixed human nature" which no socialist will ever claim because anti socialists believe that socialism goes against "fixed human nature."

Our basic nature (i.e instinct) is fixed, yes. For it to change would requires 10s of thousands of years.
Our instincts evolved with us to stay.

Money is a tool created by elites to keep people in a certain control.

It's not. The reason why there are rich people is because there is money. Money created elites, not the other way around.

"Expertise, wisdom, beauty, information about others (gossip basically), respect, etc," is what many capitalists and other non socialists value.

Those things are example of what hierarchies could form around.
Before money existed, those and others were the criteria. Capitalism didn't create human nature.
There is no determined set of ideas socialists adhere to. What you mean to say is: " capitalists and other non-you value".

There is nothing to believe. No socialist would be a socialist because they "believe." And what does fairness have to do with socialism? Fairness is a social construct.

You asked why do >I< hold these ideals. I, my opinion, believe it would result in a fair society based on the basic principles I mentioned prior.


Some people believe that being owned as a slave is "fair." Some people believe that women being ruled by men is "fair out of protection."

I don't care what other's perceive as fair.

- And that's EXACTLY what YOU are doing!

I so far haven't stated any political position regarding the standing of men and women in society.
So far, everything I stated was purely scientific facts, without giving any opinion on it.
The only little line I mentioned as an opinion is: "equal, but different".

What I'm saying is, you've, so far, been assuming my position without me stating any position.
Which, funny enough, is a strawman.

If socialism in your false mind doesn't have any political agenda,

Socialism does not have any political agenda.
The word usually placed right before or after the term socialism is the political part.
For example, technocratic socialism. Democratic socialism. etc.

then why should one support a socialist economy?

Why does economic policy need a political agenda to come with it to be valid ? It's irrelevant to the question of economic policy what political agenda may be pushed.

Some support a free market, others a regulated market, more others a socialistic market, each because they think their ideas will work the best.
Economic policy in no way determines political agenda.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013019
@anasawad,

As mentioned before, there is no fixed human nature. Humanity has evolved so much, much less than ten thousand years.

Money created elites? Then who created money? Money didn't come out of nowhere. The ruling classes did, and they did so to keep the masses under their control.

Socialism does have a political agenda. Socialism's political agenda is to end oppression and corruption. Money, family, religion, and patriarchy all cause oppression and/or corruption, depending on the non socialist system.
By anasawad
#15013127
@SSDR
As mentioned before, there is no fixed human nature. Humanity has evolved so much, much less than ten thousand years.

Our civilization has grown, and culture has changed, but our biology has been fixed for the past 100-200 thousand years.

Money created elites? Then who created money? Money didn't come out of nowhere. The ruling classes did, and they did so to keep the masses under their control.

The first forms of money began arguably anywhere between 3000-4500 years ago, depending on which state and definition you want to follow.
Primarily for foreign trade, (i.e trade between communities more than trade within them.)
Before that, hierarchies were not based on money.

Socialism does have a political agenda.

Does not.

Socialism's political agenda is to end oppression and corruption.

That political agenda is that of some socialist movements, not all.
There is a reason why we say someone is a Stalinist or Maoist or democratic socialist or any of these many classifications.
There isn't one political agenda because socialism is an economic system, and the movement adds the political agenda to it.


Money,

Note above.

family,

Family is a biological construct ingrained within all mammals. Not oppressive, natural. And is of key importance in any community. Communities where family structures are broken are destroyed with mass crime, poverty, and chaos.

religion,

Religion is on the same class of political ideologies we have today. Yes, including socialism.
Religions are the set of cultural norms, laws, folk tales, myths, sciences, philosophy, etc of a certain community codified into one coherent ideology.
Although religion can be used for oppression, religion itself is abstract.
For example; We can take a comparison at Sofi and Wahabi sects in Islam. Technically, both follow the same text, but one (Sofi) is more decentralized, anarchic, and freer sect; While the other (Wahabi) is a centralized, rigid, and oppressive sect.
The religion of both is the same, what is different is the ideology of their founders and clerics that shapes them.

In short, religion comes in all shapes and forms, and stands the same as any political ideology.

and patriarchy

You still haven't clarified what do you mean by patriarchy.

all cause oppression and/or corruption, depending on the non socialist system.

Two points;
1- Why assuming that a socialist system can not have corruption in it?
After all, greed is part of human nature.

2-Anything and everything can be used for oppressing someone, throwing a blanket statement on money and family and all is factually and logically false.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15013179
SSDR wrote:Incorrect. Women can do anything men can do in terms of occupation.


I never said that they couldn't," There are variations in skills or performance between sexes, just as there are within same sex workers.”, meaning that, as individuals(not generalising)some people of either sex perform differently to a degree,so too with their skills, some individuals are better-or worse-than others when rating them on skills & that applies to both sexes.

I wasn't in any way implying any bias one way or another in respect of male or female skills or performance & I agree with your statement above.
#15013212
SSDR wrote:So any scientific or revolutionary socialist had to use the term "Marxist" so that they wouldn't be shunned by some reactionary like @Truth To Power.

"Reactionary"? What a joke. I'm the one here who advocates the progressive synthesis that supersedes the capitalist thesis and socialist antithesis.
Anyone who claims to follow "Marxism," or "believes in socialism" is not a socialist.

Then it's hard to know what you think "socialist" means.
Science can be racist or sexist.

Then what do "racist" and "sexist" even mean? Anyone who thinks race or sex is real?
Race realism is an example. Now, I am very much for science, but science can be used by the right wingers like @Truth To Power.

One hopes science can be used by anyone who is interested in the truth (which btw doesn't include anyone who calls me a right winger).
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013374
@anasawad,

If you claim that humanity has a fixed biology, then you don't believe that evolution is true. And you claiming that family is natural and is "not" oppressive shows that you have a pre socialist brain because having faith in family was used as a coping mechanism to cope with family oriented economics that are anti socialist.

@Truth To Power,

You are reactionary because you promote patriarchy, defend social slavery, and claim that there is a fixed human nature.

It's hard for you to know what I mean by "socialist" because you don't understand what socialism is. How can you criticize socialism if you don't even understand what it is?

"Sexist" means that one believes that each sex (male or female) has to be a certain way. You can use science to back that up. Or, you can use science to disprove it. This is because science has no fixed political agenda, it's bi partisan. "Sex is real" yeah the more you talk, the more sexist you appear to be.

So anyone who points out the fact that you're a right winger is not into science?
By anasawad
#15013377
@SSDR
I do believe in evolution.
Evolution takes effect over 10s and 100s of thousands of years, evolution has not changed homo sapiens in any meaningful way in the past 200k years.
And, due to technology, it wont be changing us much any more.
And the time scale for evolution means that for our lifetimes, and for the lifetime of all of human civilization (12k years), human nature is effectively fixed.

Family structures are found all over the mammalian world.
And no, it is not oppressive in anyway to anyone. Individual cases and anecdotes are irrelevant.


I don't care if some random person on the internet calls me a sexist. As far as I see it, anyone, irregardless of who, who disagrees with some feminists or liberals is automatically sexist, racist, bigot, nazis, etc. The words lost their meaning because of the idiots using them.

Calling someone sexist or racist wont help you around here.


Also, many posts latter, you still haven't clarified what you mean by patriarchy or which definition you're using.
Which leads me to believe you're simply parroting whatever pops up on feminist media instead of thinking for yourself. Added the constant use of ad-hominems and strawman points.
Not very bright.
Last edited by anasawad on 21 Jun 2019 14:10, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013379
anasawad wrote:@SSDR
I do believe in evolution.
Evolution takes effect over 10s and 100s of thousands of years, evolution has not changed homo sapiens in any meaningful way in the past 200k years.
And, due to technology, it wont be changing us much any more.
And the time scale for evolution means that for our lifetimes, and for the lifetime of all of human civilization (12k years), human nature is effectively fixed.

Family structures are found all over the mammalian world.
And no, it is not oppressive in anyway to anyone. Individual cases and anecdotes are irrelevant.


How can you believe in evolution if you claimed that there is a fixed human biology and nature? You support socialist economics, yet you have a non socialist brain because you have faith in things that were used to help people cope with non socialist economics that were oppressive.
By anasawad
#15013380
There is no such thing as "socialist brain".
Considering the time scale, as far as any of us is concerned, human nature is fixed.
We (all of us), our children, grandchildren, and their children and grandchildren and so on for many many many generations onwards would live and die before a slight change occurs and even then it would too small to be noticeable by people living then (if we survived that long).
Evolution happens over millions of years.
It took us several millions of years to evolve from apes, with the anatomic, genetic, and instinctual (neurological) changes not even that significant.
By Truth To Power
#15013396
SSDR wrote:If you claim that humanity has a fixed biology, then you don't believe that evolution is true.

Each person has a fixed biology that consists of their genome.
And you claiming that family is natural and is "not" oppressive shows that you have a pre socialist brain because having faith in family was used as a coping mechanism to cope with family oriented economics that are anti socialist.

"Pre-socialist brain"?? :lol:
You are reactionary because you promote patriarchy,

Please define "patriarchy."
defend social slavery,

Slavery is labor compelled by force, which I don't defend. Please define "social" slavery.
and claim that there is a fixed human nature.

Humanity is still evolving, but each human being has a nature that is fixed by their genome, which is 99% the same for all of us.
It's hard for you to know what I mean by "socialist" because you don't understand what socialism is. How can you criticize socialism if you don't even understand what it is?

I know what socialism is because I have a good dictionary and I know how to use it. I just don't know what you incorrectly imagine socialism is.
"Sexist" means that one believes that each sex (male or female) has to be a certain way.

Each sex "has to be" a certain way because each sex IS a certain way that is determined by genetic differences between the sexes.
You can use science to back that up.

Right.
Or, you can use science to disprove it.

No, actually, you can't.
This is because science has no fixed political agenda, it's bi partisan.

Science has a fixed political agenda: for the truth and against evil. Science stands against evil because evil must always be justified, and the only way to justify it is with lies. Science is against lies.
"Sex is real" yeah the more you talk, the more sexist you appear to be.

By your definition I am sexist, and proud to be so.
So anyone who points out the fact that you're a right winger is not into science?

Anyone who claims I am a right winger either doesn't know what I stand for or doesn't know what right and left mean.
User avatar
By SSDR
#15013480
@anasawad,

A socialist economy cannot work if the people are not socialists. If there is a socialist economy with non socialist people, then the non socialist people will abuse the system. That's what destroyed socialism in Eastern Europe. Non socialist people in a socialist economy will produce extreme corruption, labour slackation, and general abuses of production (which can lead to underground bribes).

Many people back then supported slavery. Many people back then supported patriarchy. Some people back then (and this was as late as the 1970's) supported a woman marrying her rapist in Southern Italy! Times have changed now. And times will always change. This is basic evidence that there is no fixed human nature. Karl Marx even claimed that himself.

@Truth To Power,

A pre socialist brain is a personality that has faith in things that were used to keep people under class rule. Religion, family, patriarchy, shaming cultures, fucking dummies loving money, or social hierarchies are all examples of what society has conditioned onto people from the time one has left their mother's womb, to when they reach death.

Patriarchy is when men are above women.

Slave labour doesn't have to be compelled by force. Other methods of having slaves support slavery is shaming them for wanting to run away, making their personal lives a certain way so they could use religion to cope with it (some religions like Islam support slavery), scaring them in a non forceful manner, or brainwashing them into supporting slavery. Not all victims of human trafficking are forced to be human trafficked. Some people don't even know that they were slaves or are human trafficked. These are some examples of how slave labour wasn't compelled by force.

Humanity can evolve to socialism.

The dictionaries that define "socialism" that you are reading are lies. Those dictionaries that you used are pro capitalist dictionaries.

Each sex is NOT a certain way. There are women who stand their grounds. And there are men who like to be dominated by women.

Science does NOT have any political agenda. That is because there are so many different sciences. Marxism is science. Marxist socialism is a form of scientific socialism. Hence, socialism in general would have to be a scientific process because of all of the non socialist economies that have existed such as the German Confederate Empire, Tsarist Russia, or the Kingdom of Italy. "Evil" is a non scientific, romantic word. There is no recognizing "evil" in science because feeling that something is evil is an emotion. What one feels as evil or not depends on their political views.

You claim to being a sexist?

You're not a right winger? Then what are you? What is your political ideology?
By anasawad
#15013487
@SSDR
-Human nature=/= Ideology.
-Human nature=/= Believe systems.

The "socialist" states of eastern Europe fell due to corruption, tyranny, and oppression of the masses. The things you claim to reject.

By your definition of patriarchy, patriarchy doesn't exist in developed countries at this time.

Socialism is a system, a system that has many schools of thoughts and ideologies within it. People don't "evolve" to socialism. Social structures can temporarily uphold socialist principles, and that's about all.

No system is permanent, no ideology is flawless, and no principle is absolute.

Marxism is an ideology, a social and political ideology. Marxism absorbed socialist economic module, however, socialist economics first began several decades before Marxism.

Marxism is not science.

"scientific" socialism is technocratic socialism. Marxism=/= technocratic socialism.
A marxist state is a communist state. A technocratic socialist state is a technocracy with socialist economics. Just like a Democratic socialist state is a democracy with socialist economics.
The three aren't the same thing.


There is no such thing as a socialist scientific process. The scientific process is independent of any system or
ideology.
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
Syrian war thread

So every citizen causality is ok. If you don't w[…]

On Lebanon

@Palmyrene Of course you're not. :lol: I[…]

Trump and Russiagate

At the expense of how many other jobs? You're igno[…]

What seems to have escaped you is that the Presid[…]