vietcong2005 wrote:
go live in North Korea, they have a good quality of life. They have a benevolent and charismatic president, and an open democracy.
Pinned The Open Bar Chatroom
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.
-
-
BrutusTrump wrote:
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
BrutusTrump wrote:
Europe always makes fun of America for stuff, kind of understandably. However, they have to remember that without us, they’re another province of Russia.
America spends twice as much on it's military than the entire EU.
That one working destroyer has 6 working torpedo tubes of which only 3 work but there's only enough ammo for one tube. Despite this, it is being aimed by a person who has a doctorate from Cambridge who is paid £5 an hour. -
cl0xy wrote:
russia is a failed nation
-
AK140 wrote:
cl0xy wrote:
russia is a failed nation
The Saviour -
The true intention of my posts is to say, no one has any idea on what can happen when thry choose something, in politics, in choosing a leader.The Saviour
-
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
AK140 wrote:
cl0xy wrote:
russia is a failed nation
India, despite being an ally of the USSR and strong support for socialism, was never socialist and is still capitalist today. This is important, for the material condition of the people dictates what they can or cannot do, what is desireable for them, and how they can execute the actions. What people believe or whatever their morality is are only secondary to the material condition. If this material condition happens to be capitalism which is a system that requires an exploiter and an exploitee, then there will always be someone who exploits and someone who is exploited irregardless of what they personally believe. This is just proving my point that capitalism is a failure.
The articles also mentioned about the mass immigration to Goa, being a relatively wealthy region compared to the rest of India; this is also one manifestation of capitalism. I really recommend watching this video series for a better detailed explanation; it talks about gentrification which is basically a smaller and short-scale version of what's happening to Goa.
Another is about the disappearing culture. Remember, capitalism puts profit above all, so this is unsurprising; it makes more economic sense to use standard languages for official activities, and they will try to drill the standard languages to children while discouraging them from the "non-standard languages" because they're associated with the "lower class" and therefore "not professional".
A tangent, but interest for a culture has been commodified nowadays which now exists as some sorta informal market. Take Kurdish and Japanese cultures for example: Kurdish languages and cultures are being oppressed, and interest for them are low, so the Kurdish people are actually willing to pay for their languages and cultures to be taught and spread to strangers across the world, while Japanese language and culture on the other hand, it is in abundance and freely distributed, and the interest for them are also high, but Japanese people and other people who are well acquainted to the language and culture want to monetize their knowledge; I've seen at least 3-5 people in Discord who had monetized their Japanese knowledge to teach it to others, and some more are also considering doing the same thing.
Is that not weird? Letting capitalism commodify everything we take for granted?
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
The true intention of my posts is to say, no one has any idea on what can happen when thry choose something, in politics, in choosing a leader.
-
See, India is a socialist state and not capitalist, if you even did research you would have found out, Portugal at that time was fasict, and India, till now is socialistThe Saviour
-
True, India did the mass immigration to the wealthiest, highest ppp, and hdi, and destroyed everything, now it's in second rank or so in hdi. I don't see how anything better would happen in communism, they would just take the wealth and go away, as what happened to post ww2 east Germany, if communism was such a marvel, why is there no communist state as of now?The Saviour
-
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
See, India is a socialist state and not capitalist, if you even did research you would have found out, Portugal at that time was fasict, and India, till now is socialist
Wikipedia wrote:
Several countries with liberal democratic constitutions mention socialism. India is a liberal democracy that has been ruled by non-socialist parties on many occasions, but its constitution makes references to socialism.
Socialism is a mode of production after capitalism and before Communism. It is when the means of production are collectively owned either directly through workers' self-management or indirectly through the proletarian-controlled state. This isn't what happened to India then and now. The Pre-liberalisation period (1947–1991) of India was a heavily regulated private ownership of the means of production. It was a doctrine known as Dirigisme where the state, instead of directly owning the means of production or let the workers themselves own them, allow private entities to own the means of production while being heavily regulated by the state. It was essentially a watered-down version of state capitalism.
I have no idea how in the world you'd think India is socialist right now. I understand the misunderstanding of the pre-liberalisation period, but today? It's a freemarket neoliberal hellhole!
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
Portugal at that time was fasict
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
True, India did the mass immigration to the wealthiest, highest ppp, and hdi, and destroyed everything, now it's in second rank or so in hdi. I don't see how anything better would happen in communism, they would just take the wealth and go away, as what happened to post ww2 east Germany, if communism was such a marvel, why is there no communist state as of now?
I'll just say this again in case others forget what was said many times already: communist state is an oxymoron. The point of Communism is a classless, stateless, and moneyless society.
The fact that people keep misunderstanding and forgetting what the basic definition of Communism was is a telltale sign that capitalism has a strong foundation of your ideology... then let me ask you in return, why do you think people like me, who believe in the advancements toward a Communist society and that no middle-ground between Communism and Capitalism exist, keep appearing? Aren't you at least curious to find out more? -
A communist state wouldn't work. Just not.The Saviour
-
Moneyless society? Classless society? What are we? Liquids?The Saviour
-
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
A communist state wouldn't work. Just not.
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
Moneyless society? Classless society? What are we? Liquids?
It doesn't seem you can produce a productive argument, but that is fine. You've shown the limits of the bullshit capitalism brainwashing can go so far.
For anyone else, I recommend these sources to learn more about Socialism, Communism, and what capitalism actually are:
monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
socialism101.com/basic
socialist.net/myths-of-marxism-101-faq.htm
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0J754r0IteXABJntjBg1YuNsn6jItWXQ
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCcemL_x8RtdtFuib1Wl6VwyuYOEDb5Wv
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9-xdadKE3587AEUmXpYT01PdbuRQCB_
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCcemL_x8RtfDRZ4TWYWcG_gy4pq5ZQhQ
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
You don't have to watch and read all of them, but if you don't even bother looking at least one of them, then that's your bias for capitalism at play. I invite you, the reader, to challange the bias capitalism has set for you. -
I know what they are, but I agree on left healthcare and all and left liberal thinking too, and a right economy. No left economy has flourished as of now.The Saviour
-
So, a capitalist economy, and a socialist ideology wins aka central. If we want a right ideology and economy, it'll fail. Vice versa, so there needs to be a balance to everything.The Saviour
-
AK140 wrote:
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
A communist state wouldn't work. Just not.
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
Moneyless society? Classless society? What are we? Liquids?
It doesn't seem you can produce a productive argument, but that is fine. You've shown the limits of the bullshit capitalism brainwashing can go so far.
For anyone else, I recommend these sources to learn more about Socialism, Communism, and what capitalism actually are:
monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
socialism101.com/basic
socialist.net/myths-of-marxism-101-faq.htm
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0J754r0IteXABJntjBg1YuNsn6jItWXQ
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCcemL_x8RtdtFuib1Wl6VwyuYOEDb5Wv
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9-xdadKE3587AEUmXpYT01PdbuRQCB_
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCcemL_x8RtfDRZ4TWYWcG_gy4pq5ZQhQ
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
You don't have to watch and read all of them, but if you don't even bother looking at least one of them, then that's your bias for capitalism at play. I invite you, the reader, to challange the bias capitalism has set for you.
WHOS GONNA CARRY THE BOATS?
WHOS GONNA CARRY THE LOGS?
THEY DON'T KNOW YOU SON!
- David Goggins -
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
So, a capitalist economy, and a socialist ideology wins aka central. If we want a right ideology and economy, it'll fail. Vice versa, so there needs to be a balance to everything.
Claudio von Panjim wrote:
I know what they are, but I agree on left healthcare and all and left liberal thinking too, and a right economy. No left economy has flourished as of now.
You have to excuse me for doubting you whether you really know what Socialism and Communism are since you kept sharing common misconceptions.
Are you sure you haven't checked any of these out? I'm set to include them to my replies as to not distract others from these important info:
monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
socialism101.com/basic
socialist.net/myths-of-marxism-101-faq.htm
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0J754r0IteXABJntjBg1YuNsn6jItWXQ
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCcemL_x8RtdtFuib1Wl6VwyuYOEDb5Wv
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB9-xdadKE3587AEUmXpYT01PdbuRQCB_
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCcemL_x8RtfDRZ4TWYWcG_gy4pq5ZQhQ
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm -
Liberalism must be followed with a right economyThe Saviour
-
When has communism or socialism worked out?WHOS GONNA CARRY THE BOATS?
WHOS GONNA CARRY THE LOGS?
THEY DON'T KNOW YOU SON!
- David Goggins -
BrutusTrump wrote:
When has communism or socialism worked out?
Marxist perspective:
Non-Marxist perspective:
But we can use Cuba as an example. Cuba is socialist and it worked so well that the USA is imposing an illegal embargo on Cuba that is supported only by USA and Israel against the will of most of the countries in the world. If socialism really couldn't work, then tell your leaders to release the embargo and watch socialism fail.
As for Communism, humanity lived under primitive communism for the most of our existence. It was at least until 12,000 years ago when we started having private property did reach a stage just beyond primitive communism. Even if we counted humanity's existence only as Homo sapiens that first appeared 300,000 years ago, we only lived beyond primitive communism for 4% of our existence. Heck, we are even still doing Communism with air today! Communism is in human nature.
I'm not even suggesting that we should "return to monke". What we Communists recognize is that private property was developed out of necessities of the material condition and social structure of the time and gradually evolved to suit the needs of the time frame, however, the days of the usefulness of private property have come to pass. We no longer need private propety. (In case people forget what "private property" means)
AK140 wrote:
To debunk another common misconception that's circulating around as memes: No, Communism is not when nobody can own anything.
azureScapegoat wrote:
If you're afraid the communists are going to break into your home and take your Xbox because private property has been abolished, you can sleep easy knowing that "private property" is not the same as "personal property." Private property refers to means of production (factories, machinery, etc.), whereas personal property refers to the things you the common person own. Your house, your car, and your Xbox are all personal property, and belong to you.
-
I have no wordsThe Saviour
-
Share
- Facebook 0
- Twitter 0
- Google Plus 0
- Reddit 0