Cant have lazy ass niggers

Stop being poor

this

literally the "stop being poor work harder." bullshit yeet

I mean this is implying that niggers work in the first place and don’t just cash in from welfare every month

<:GWcfcThonk:357907199928041473>

i think he's implying that he can't statistics

Niggers dont work stop trying to protect them faggot

you can't maths science or statistics
stop trying to act smart

Without niggers who would employ policemen

The policemen wouldn’t be needed

mr "I read the communist mainfesto but think socialists and communists are the same."

Socialism is when the means of production are publicly owned

It’s a transitionary phase to communism

Which is a stateless classless currencyless society

@🌼Kalina🌹🌸🌹Zay🌹🌸🌹Scott🌼 they aren't

That's what you've been saying this entire time

You are a ***socialist***

Not a communist

@Leroy and you're a Robloxian Nationalist

Isn't the socialist party basically defunct tho?

No @Shell Shock

Why wouldn't both socialists and communists put aside their differences and be in the same party

@Leroy
>arguing with a Marxist on Marxist definitions
lol k no.

Lol k yes

You people are too fucking stupid to agree on basic definitions

```How do communists differ from socialists?
The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.

[ Reactionary Socialists: ]
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:

(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.

(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.```

```[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.```

```[ Democratic Socialists: ]
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.

It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.```

Tfw Marxists can define socialist, and communist. But capitalists don't get to define capitalist.

fucking read the principles of communism by engels. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Lmao

@Bill Murphy the famous actor true

capitalists **do define how capitalism operates**
marxist just **observe** how the capitalist manage capitalism.

jfc

^

OK well socialists define(d) how socialism operates in socialist states, like in modern China and in the old Soviet Union. We just observe how it operates.

in b4 leo is like "but ENGELS is wrong on communists vs socialists."

lol no capitalists don't analyse at all how socialism operates in the soviet union. in stead they produce propaganda against it.

Hahaha

Yes there hasn't been a single economist analyze the economy of the USSR

Like they ignore that they reintroduced capitalism in 88 and that’s what killed it

Do as I say not as I do, filthy capitalist.

all Keynesian economics and non-neo liberal economists were pretty much purged in the 1970s and 1980s to allow the disaster that is neoliberalism capitalism, to trust their analysis on socialist states when they're basically cheerleaders for capitalism isn't something i'd like to do.

Keynesianism hasn't been purged are you daft

it's only in the age of post 2008 that post-Keynesian and Keynesian thought has recovered because neo liberals created the disaster that is the 2008 crash.

ThAnKS nEo LiBerAlISM

Do you even know who anything about new keynesianism

Robert Solow

Stiglitz

Big names in modern Keynesianism

the 2008 crash was the cause of neoliberalism? when was practices that caused the crash illegal or attempted at being prevented in pre-neoliberalism?

seems like a kinda unfair comparison, its the system itself

"Stop being poor, work harder" is dumb lmao
It should be "Stop reproducing if you're poor, there's not enough resources for your offspring"

Indeed

Very true.

This is applicable in any economic system, whether it be communist or capitalist

The alternative will bleed your civilization dry of resources

Is Karde being a twat again?

When is he not? <:GWcfcThonk:357907199928041473>

Literally never.

I can imagine him getting bullied at school.

For being the one kid who just has an autistic break down every 10 seconds.

Lmao

ok if you want it to be so i guess i'm an autistic twat who breaks down every ten seconds and gets bullied at school but urm what the fuck does this change?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lt47llMalmc

Who's Karde

Nvm

He was in LP

I can tell cuz

My dm’s with him

Is me shilling for libertas

Months ago

@Deleted User

🤗

Missed you nigga.

there has been loads of indepth economic analysis of the USSR are you daft

are you

gay?

yesir

white is best color

ppl and all their conspiracies about my roles

just don't get it

I am just representing the white race

the title 'Senate Leader' is dumb af

why use it if there's a fancy title 'Speaker of the Senate'

yeah I like that one better

we were also considering chancellor

nah

chancellor is a head of executive branch

not legislative

..

.

?

yo did that one bill pass

guess not

havent gotten to vote on it yet

eagle is not always here to put up bills to vote for, which is why we want to senate leader bill

oh ok

so you guys can't propose bills anymore?

yeah I like this bill

Is it just me, but I kind of want to laugh at the Monarchist party considering Fascist party did it right.

did what right

Won.

from what I hear the other monarchists are a bunch of cucks

won what

The vote here.

yeah there's like 10 monarchists

Is it just me, but I swear every political party always says "X Group is a bunch of cucks"

it's my party

Classical Liberals call communists cucks.

The left authoritarians call Libertarians cucks.

The right Authoritarians say similar shit for being individualistic.

yeah I'm a monarchist and the rest of the monarchists are cucks because they have no balls

The ancaps call anarcho-commies cucks.

I may have to start my own party

```fix
What political party generally doesn't call a certain group a "CUCK"?
```

Don't say Anarcho-Pacifism.

fasco-monarchist party

Fasco-Monarchism is dumb.

Anarcho-Monarchism is more enlightened.

the only real difference

Mono-Ruler.

would be that we would have a legitimate ruler with claim to the land

Not much.

it would belong to the king

You're better off with a Strasserist.

As it would belong to "le-dictator."

Seize the land if used unproperly.

the king is not a dictator

They're very much the same..

no

Very similar in actions.

the king has legitimate claim to the land

are you a consitutional monarchist?

it's his land

Dictators say it's their land.

but it's really not lmao

do you guys like want to elect a king?

^ There is no land on a server.

we will support a legitimate ruler

What is this?

Minecraft?

you idior

good lord

I don't support a legitimate ruler if it is not voluntary.

anyway

who is the legitimate ruler? somebody in your party?

I just express a lot of the fascist social views.

we'll support whoever has legitimate claim to this land

Mean our corporatives.

<.<

absolute monarchy is harmful, constitutional monarchy is useless
/thread

how about we crown flanon as emperror? would you be in favor?

does he own the gsa?

is it his land?

he is president

Can we just have no ruler?

so no its not his land

they have to own the land

eh

that's the only way it can be legitimate

People have to own land, it should be used to help society out though.

thats an odd way of going about it

you have to be monarch to own the land

I think what he wants is a sort of New Monarchism

not necessarily

more of a Land-Owner Monarchism

T_T Monarchism is a joke.

^

it would take a Caesar like character

wait a communist agreeing with a libertarian-corporatist?

he would have to military or otherwise take the gsa

A third position libertarian agreeing with communist?

so what?

thats what you call yourself?

then it will be his

agreeing? I did not agree

I was trying to understand

T_T

Why not have the planned thought out military being on the benefit of the people over a ruler that is more likely to fuck his cousin to keep land?

yeah, take the land = become monarch

lmao

because democratic wars are shit

benefit of the people my ass

Being paid with the colaboration between worker and business.

yeah

more like benefit for the upper class

The workers have the corporatives, not the businesses.

you're always going to end up with a ruling class

no matter what

this would also make it explicit

we have an aristocracy, we have royalty

so no one believes we're equal and is being lied to

I can change ```css
We have means of production, we have communism
```... It doesn't make a difference between the statements what you said. <:L

what?

ruling class =/= aristocracy

royalty and aristocracy is the ruling class

elite's status is not hereditary today

my ass

look at the clintons

and the bushs

It's hereditarly my ass.

and the Rothschilds

Rothschilds should be over thrown by the corporative working class.

they're not though

Nationalists fight shit like that.

>working class led by communist party
fixed

they're not going to be, they're basically ruling class

whatever Quinn

monarchy is the way

lmao

Communism failed to hit the market of people's family values.

but theres a good chance my fellow monarchists might cuck out

wdym Quinn

It doesn't have anything to offer culturally or aim to preserve it.

That's kind of why I like Third-Positionist idealogies as they aim for the economics of the left to preserve the cultural values of the right-wing.

you speak of culture as of something independent from economy

yet it isn't

I say culture as something that can reflect an economy.

Like Strasserism's theme of socialist tactics and being anti-properity fundamentally, but presevering the fatherland... Preserve the farmer way of life and just being traditional.

Strasserism is Socialism + Extreme Nationalism, being known as guild socialism.

Despite not being Red Socialism.

How workers gather on the basis of interest not for a fight.

replacing the mode of production will inevitably lead to changes in people's living conditions

That's common sense.

As it's a difference between self-interest production and production for others.

It's about who owns the means of material and production, and how it is used.

and the culture derives from everyday life

but if this life changes, culture changes too

I see culture derives from the past and what is considered "counter-culture" when selling.

Capitalists I hate for being fundamentally aiming for self-desires and counter-culture and expect to sell it to people. Aim for lowest demonitator.

You get the most money by appealing to every single group on the planet.

If put that with an idealogy, it kind of shows you what's is wrong.

To me... I just fucking hate bankers and 16 top monopolies created by individuals in society and state.

me too

but you can't change society's material basis and keep it traditionalist at the same time

Only allow businesses that actually care about their workers, people, and nation.

the only thing businesses are set up for is profit

Well technically by shrinking the state's power in civil life and less individualistic focused laws yes you can.

As I see disolving parts of the state will benefit mutualists and libertarians of the right wing.

it's not about the state. it's about the environment people live in

Unless you count Affirmative action, Welfarism, and Feminism as apart of the state's power in civil and economic life.

Taxiation is theft of labor when you have people living off of the state thanks to certain race, sex, and "supposed disablity".

I hate how you can't get drug tested if live on government benefits, but when you work you get drug tested.

Isn't that bullshit?

it is but that's not what we were talking about

just pay your taxes so the state won't fix potholes

Don't you hate it when the state steals your labor to give it someone who does not work?

For me, I like roads, and believe should be public.