they also banned communist goys that were anti zionist

if they are bankers, oil merchants and government fraudsters, yes, they are part of the elite

none of these men provided intellectual support

The CPUSA had a lot of minorities, but it also had "red-blooded" Americans in the upper echelons.

you adding that to the comment only shows how intellectually dishonest you are

again

majority jewish

And was at one point touted as the "New Americanism".

while the jewish population at the time in the 1960s was less than 1%

idc what it was touted as

america is touted as a melting pot

does not make it so

a socialist jew gave it that title, it does not make it true

jews are no strangers to wanting to be only one group of many, exactly why they love immigration and homosexuality. Because they become only one of many minority crowds, and no one can point their fingers at them anymore, they're just one of the many

yet in communist circles, they were never one of the many, they were the many.

This is made evidently clear in the neo-conservative movement of former CPUSA/communist sympathizers, who, again, were majority jewish

Alfred Wagenknacht, William Z Foster, Earl Browder, Harry Haywood, Gus Hall.. the majority of the CPUSA leadership were NOT Jewish.

And most neo-cons come from the Trotskyist tradition.

There's also substantial evidence which suggests the Jews were not the largest ethnic minority in the CPUSA.

CPUSA is more revisionist than China

They may have had a larger "voice" than many of the other ethnic groups, but there's no reason to believe they were statistically larger in number.

there is also substantial evidence that suggests the opposite. Additionally, if you've ever read Schatz, you'll see why the CPUSA had so many "polish" leaders

Jews were heavily active in the pre-WWI socialist movement, but they were certainly not the majority in the CPUSA, or most communist organizations for that matter.

Jewish leadership in the CPUSA is quoted as saying they want to instill puppet goy leaders of the party as "window dressing"

In fact, even in the Socialist Party, most of the ethnic minorities were non-Jewish Eastern Europeans.

At one point in the CPUSA's history, during the 20s, most of the members were Finns.

natsoc gang

yet no matter which journalist, even at the time, was reporting on them, they were saying that the speaking elite, i.e. the influencers, were all ejws

*jews

Did Jews have a large influence at one point in the communist movement, particularly after the Jewish Federation of the Socialist Party split? Sure. But they were never a majority. Not in a general membership sense nor in a leadership sense.

And many of them were non-practicing Jews who assimilated.

"it became increasingly apparent to most participants that virtually all of the speakers were Jewish New Yorkers. Speakers with thick New York accents would identify themselves as the "delegate from the Lower East Side" or "the comrade from Brownsville"" - a documented goy communist party member during an interview

it doesn't matter whether a jew practices judaism or not

jews are a people, not a religion

Actually, it's also a religion.

And you're right: just because they were Jews, that inherently means they were connected to the financial aristocracy and therefore rule over all the land.

In Communist cadre, Harvey Klehr estimates the Jewish membership of the CPUSA estimated over 40% of the total membership

The "inferior" Jews are the masters of planet earth, who could easily squash an Ubermensch like yourself.

while not a majority, they were vastly overrepresented

40 to 1

more strawmen

That's exactly what you believe.

You consider them inferior yet all-powerful.

when the communist fails to find reason, which is what is often the case, he resorts to petty illogical nonsense.

is a leech superior to a lion?

is a parasite superior to its inhabitant organism?

I never claim jews are not smart. I claim they are evil

You add parentheses around their name because they are obviously so important.

Keep blaming the Jews for all your problems instead of dealing with real issues. You're a race-reductionist, not an individual seeking systematic change.

keep crying, it is evident you have lost the debate and are resorting to petty illogical nonsense to state your bullshit.

When will you realize that the Jews aren't the problem? Most Jewish people have absolutely nothing to do with the capitalist class and are in a similar position to yourself.

This wasn't a debate, it was you blaming da jooz.

everyone can see your debates, as you so like to analogize, are akin to your excrament

You failed to answer my questions regarding how wealthy and well-informed sympathizers of the Russian Revolution have anything to do with (((them))).

I don't see a problem with that. Why do You?

Holy shit

next you will try vapidly to assert that I'm a homosexual, because your 80 IQ brain hasn't exactly benefited enough from the environment to allow you to go past autistic insults like ur gay lmao.

How did they contribute anything to (((them))) while contributing to the revolution?

watching two ideologies I hate argue is wonderful

(((they))) themselves were the ones who wished for communism to happen

It's like Nazi Germany vs the USSR and I am just America, watching yall kill each other off and come in and take the victory 4th quarter

@Adoring Fan I obviously touched a nerve with that one. Good thing I didn't touch your private place, otherwise you might have had some flashbacks to when Uncledaddy took you camping.

the jewish oil moguls and bankers did not wish to have their own assets seized, which they never did. They wished for their "historical oppressors" to be oppressed

lmao, exactly what I mean

you are incapable of arguing, if your life dependent on it

ad hominem battles inbound!

it's not even an ad hom

it's just an insult

ad hominem debates are fucking great as long as both parties are participating

i have no reason to participate in nonsensical "ur gay" "no u" battles

nothing comes out of it.

no u

>:)

attempting to be witty for the sake of approval from your friends at worldstar can only get you so far

ur gay

wit does not uncover truth

@Adoring Fan You've literally failed to provide any substantial evidence that doesn't amount to anecdotal bullshit from a 1920s NY Times article that you obviously didn't read, or some quote which supposedly originated from a member of the CPUSA at a rally that may not have even taken place. You have no reliable sources whatsoever.

anecdotal how?

I've given you a list of elites that funded the revolution and its end result

!rank

NIG NOG WHAT

!levels

Go check **Politicord Simulator**'s leaderboard here https://mee6.xyz/leaderboard/450389123081961472. <:WINK6:403540173566115840>

Philadelphia communists, 1936-1956, Paul Lyons, page 81 @Deleted User

First of all, Parvus wasn't an "elite" by any means. He was NOT a capitalist. Secondly, Olof may have been an "elite," but he was clearly a well-known communist sympathizer, and obviously wanted nothing to do with the private interests of the financial oligarchy. They were both class-traitors, which is a good thing.

He was a government official, with a position of power.

most communists including your butt buddy the anglo whatshisname will say that that's enough to be considered capitalistic

;;

!rank

GKJLDSBFJKASBDJKASN

REKT

and government financial positions are not elite according to your book? I failed to realise that that is clearly a factor

Your all stupid liberals shut up.

Russia military is stronger then the USA

by what standard

the cowardly little kike snake funneled money from the german economy to the soviet, through switzerland, illegally.

I’m joking

They dont

Only by people

!rank

!rank

!rank

<:GWnanaREEEEEEEEEE:392308452208410627>

Rank 106

Kc

!top

did you know that north korea has the 4th largest army in the world?

!rank

it don't do top for some reason

!ranks

!rank top

No they dont

ree

that is levels

!levels

Go check **Politicord Simulator**'s leaderboard here https://mee6.xyz/leaderboard/450389123081961472. <:WINK6:403540173566115840>

!levels

Go check **Politicord Simulator**'s leaderboard here https://mee6.xyz/leaderboard/450389123081961472. <:WINK6:403540173566115840>

they do, but only because of the insane amount of conscription

rip my anus amirite gaymen?

again

by what standard

largest

I

by enlisted men

m 5th lmao

sure

yes

noice

but by military size including navy's and air forces

nah

@Adoring Fan No, because nobody with even an elementary-level understanding of socioeconomic relations would even think such a thing. You clearly don't know what being a "capitalist" entails. And Parvus was NEVER an official of any government. He had no governmental authority with which he could exercise in any sense. There's also substantial evidence suggesting he didn't "fund the revolution". He may have been sympathetic and contributed to it in a non-material sense, but he certainly didn't bankroll it.

he was a leading figure and spokesperson in the social democratic party

He was a theoretician with a background in political economy. He wasn't exactly a "leading figure" in the sense that he could exercise political control over anything or anyone. His "power" was minimal, and his role was largely that of an advisor.

no, it seems like nobody in the world except for (You) and people in agreement with you understand what being a capitalist entails. Because like I've said before, only your definitions are valid to you. Not anyone else's. No amount of historical truths will free you from your Marxist post modernist tunnel vision

Equating Marxism with post-modernism now? Okay, Jordan Peterson. Why don't you explain what Marxism and post-modern philosophy actually are? Bet you can't.

can anybody explain to you what Marxism is? And no, I did not equate it, I added them together to form your word masturbation

amazing red herring btw

The Marxian critique of capitalism is a modernist one, it has absolutely nothing to do with post-modern French philosophy aside from the fact that some philosophers associated with that school were influenced by Marxism to a certain extent.

again, I did not equate marxism with post modernism. I stated that you used post modernism to justify marxism

You "added them together" because you're implying that one must be a post-modernist in order to be a Marxist and vice versa.

no I did not

I stated that you specifically used one to achieve the other

hence why I said

"No amount of historical truths will free you from your Marxist post modernist tunnel vision"

amazing how you use post-modernism to try to prove I misrepresent post-modernism

laughable

Oh, so post-modernism is some universally sound body of thought, with absolutely no dissimilarities? It's a direct result of the modernist critique of capitalism presented by Marx and Engels?

no, I am not saying that lmao

Pretty sure you know little to nothing about either and you're just pulling more shit out of your ass in a terrible attempt to save face.

you're, without pause, misrepresenting my words

keep trying

Oh, what is there to misrepresent about "You specifically used one to achieve the other"?

Maybe you should keep studying before you come here and spout off anymore obvious bullshit as though it weren't blatantly obvious that you're far from being an expert on either subject. Does your mental midgetry know no bounds?

fight fight fight fight

Maybe you should cease misrepresenting me. Post-modernism in your use was manipulated subjectivity. I.e.

you used subjective definitions to your advantage in order to subvert objective historically accepted definitions of socialism/capitalism

thus defending marxism

Oh really? Lemme guess, it was manipulated subjectivity to the 9th power thereby necessitating the historical subversion of objective definitionality regarding the theoretical application of socialism in relation to it's linear progression from capitalism? Anymore bullshit red herrings you want to cook up? Maybe you can add even more nonsense to the next one. Gives it more flavor.

⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣠⣴⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⣄⢀⠠⡀
⢀⢀⢀⢀⣠⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⣤⣙⣿⣿⣾⣷⣄
⢀⢀⢀⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄
⢀⢀⠜⣿⠙⣹⡻⡿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄
⢀⢀⣰⣿⢠⣿⣇⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢀⢀⢀⢀
⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢀⢀⠍⠙⢿⡟⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣄⣴⣾⠃
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⠈⢀⡤⢲⣾⣗⠲⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠻⢿⣿⣿⡿⠃
⡿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀⢙⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢀⠰⠁⢰⣾⣿⣿⡇⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣄⡀
⡇⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣇⢀⢀⠙⠷⣍⠛⠛⢀⢀⢀⢀⠙⠋⠉⢀⢀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⢀⡟⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⠦
⠰⢀⠻⣿⣿⣿⣧⡙⠆⢀⣀⠤⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⣧⢸⢻⣿⣿⠿⢿⡆⠁⠠⠠
⢀⢀⢀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣷⣖⠋⠁⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣀⣀⣄⢀⢀⢀⢀⢸⠏⣿⣿⣿⢿⣿⢸⣿⣆⢀⢻⣿⣆⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣀⡀
⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⣿⣿⣿⣷⡀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⡒⠉⠉⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢈⣴⣿⣿⡿⢀⡿⢀⢻⣿⣆⡈⣿⣿⠂⢀⢀⢀⢸⣿⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠐⣴⠦
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠘⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⢀⢀⢀⢀⠐⠄⢀⢀⢀⠈⢀⣀⣴⣿⣿⣿⡿⠁⢀⣡⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⣄⢀⢀⢀⢸⣿⢀⢀⢀⢀⠐⣠⣾⡏
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢹⠻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆⠢⣤⣄⢀⢀⣀⠠⢴⣾⣿⣿⡿⢋⠟⢡⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣶⡄⣿⣿⢂⠐⢀⣤⡾⡟⠁
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠸⢀⠘⠿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣹⣿⣀⣀⣀⣀⠘⠛⠋⠁⡀⣄⣴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢀⣿⣿⣴⣾⣿⣭⣄⢀⢀⠂⢀⡀
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⠛⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⢀⢀⢀⣡⣾⣿⣿⣿⡟⣹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠏⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣦⣤⣤⡮⠷
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⣶⣿⡿⢛⢿⡇⠟⠰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠁⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢇⢀⠁
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⡿⢉⣭⢭⠏⣿⡿⢸⡏⣼⣿⢴⡇⢸⣿⣶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢿⣿⣿⡿⠟⠁⢀⢀⠠⡀⡐
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢰⣿⣿⣿⢃⣶⣶⡏⠸⠟⣱⣿⣧⣛⣣⢾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⠈⢀⢀⡼⠉⠉⠉⠁⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⠟⢻⡿⡉⣷⣬⡛⣵⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡯⢀⢀⠴⠋
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⢰⠘⣰⣇⣿⣿⣰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠘⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡷⢺⣿⠟⣩⣭⣽⣇⠲⠶⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠐⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⢐⡈⣿⣷⣶⠎⣹⡟⠟⣛⣸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠠⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣯⣼⣿⣷⣿⣷⣶⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠐⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠂⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡀
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⠼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⡄
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠹⠉⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠓⣀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠄⡠⣹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣇
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠋⠉⠛⢦
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠉⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠁⡀
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢻⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢿⡿⠟⠁⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠐
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⠙⠻⠿⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⣿⡟⣿⠹⣮⣿⠁⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠠
⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠉⢀⠛⠳⢾⣷⣾⣿⣹⣿⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀

@Deleted User in no way was this a red herring.

You really are a Master Chef. Jordan Ramsayson would be proud.

your word masturbation of marx's theory of the stages of history is impressive, it really is, but that's all it is at the end of the day - word masturbation

marx's theory is nonsensical, subjective bullshit. And postmodernism only enables such bullshit by denying objective truths. By denying objective truths, one can easily delve into the realm of defining socialism/communism/capitalism/power struggles in any way one desires.

Even if I were theoretical masturbator, at least I'm not pleasuring myself to simulated situations through a medium of abstraction which has absolutely no bearing on concrete reality and the material relations therein.

marx disregarded both past and contemporary definitions of economic systems, to enhance his own vision. As a result, his followers only see his definition, an altering of the previously agreed upon meanings of terms such as capitalism and socialism.

like I said, word masturbation. You jacking yourself off to the vast array of words in your vocabulary doesn't shy away from the obvious, objective truth, that you've yet to speak a single truth.

How does he "disregard" them when his writings are filled with commentary that only a highly-educated individual who knows his stuff could provide? He was a Master of not only the classics, but also the popular thought of his day. His knowledge of political economy was vast, and he makes this obvious in his writings.

appeal to authority. You omit the fact that Marx knowingly failed to account for socialistic thought that existed prior to Marx, such as that of Mazdak, Thomas Paine, Chartism, Distributism, etc. All these systems were disregarded as capitalistic because Marx decided to alter previously accepted definitions.

oh, and Prussian Socialism, of course

I love watching facist and communist argue

Who's that guy ^

a liberal

Don’t blame you they’re a bunch of idiots

OH BOY

HE MUST BE THE FIRST

@Adoring Fan Way to take another fallacy out of context. And No, he definitely didn't. It's obvious that you haven't read Marx's thoughts on utopian socialism. You are just a shit-tier pleb-brain that makes claims without justifying them.

I heard Hitler was a hermaphrodite. Don't ask me for a source though.

Why be a liberal, when you can be a *libertarian*

Liberals are a endangered species

strawman

We are the OG liberals

libruls hur hur hur

You new liberals are a sham

how do i go about this

and yes, in his criticism of utopian socialism, marx wrote within the confines of his definitions, of bourgeoisie and proletariat

>wanting to be any form of liberal ever

🤢

^

“Lol we masculine gays were the first gays!”

How about just not be gay?

That isn't a strawman, pal. Learn how to contextualize. Maybe then you'll be able to provide source material in defense of your claims and won't have to to call people out for fallacies they were never responsible for in a shitty attempt to shut down your opposition who you so moronically presume is dumb enough to believe they are at fault.

Yankee doodle keep it up

>Yankee

you've so far been wholly unable to counter what I've presented. Your attempt to negate my criticism of Marx as disregarding other defitions of socialism for his own plays little effect into the actuality that his criticism merely evaluated the systems before him. He never successfully disregarded them as socialistic system whatsoever. As a result, it is foolish to treat Marx's definition of socialism as the only valid one.

Yo Voice in this server is dead

rip

O7

Yet another claim that you will fail to substantiate. Marx didn't think in such strict binary terms. He wrote about more than the bourgeoisie and proletariat. He knew very well that those weren't the only players in class society.

Inshallah

Marx accused Proudhon of wanting to rise above the bourgeoisie, for instance. I've so far substantiated everything. You merely refuse to accept reality. You deny the statements made by an actual party member of the CPUSA on the influence of Jews in the party, because it does not fit your narrative. It is documented very well. I gave you the exact page of the book that provides the evidence. You, by denying my evidence, attempt to claim that I have shown no evidence. That is illogical.

@Adoring Fan You're actually the one negating your own claims by failing to back them up with evidence. An unsubstantiated claim is of no worth whatsoever. And you're also straw-manning once again by claiming that I consider Marx's definition to be the only "valid" definition of socialism. I've never claimed that. It's not an argument I'm making, much less the crux of one.

you have, in practice, shown that you only accept Marx's socialism as valid socialism

This shit is pointless af lmao. I don't even follow because I typically only study the popular positions held in society, as they are ofc more relevant

How have I shown that? Are you EVER going to justify your claims with evidence?

But every statement yall make is like "I substantiate, you don't"

for instance, here you denied what is ultimately Chartian Socialism as being not real socialism

https://i.imgur.com/Ud9w8LF.png

Chartism falls under the confines of what you wrote

yet was, and still is, for all intents and purposes, considered socialism

@🦅 𝓔𝓪𝓰𝓵𝓮 𝓔𝔂𝓮 🦅 additionally this. Nobody in contemporary politics aside from Marxists consider Marx's definition of socialism as that which the old jew did

I don't trust your link, and I never claimed chartism wasn't a form of socialism. I would consider it utopian, but socialism nonetheless.

lmao

Honestly how are you guys still arguing

stamina

"It's over fruity pebbles, I have the moral high ground."

@Adoring Fan >old Jew
Nice pot-shot at one of the greatest minds to ever live. And your ignorant ass obviously hasn't read much of anything by Marx. If you did, you would know that he wrote very little about socialism. His theory is primarily descriptive, and entails a critique of the capitalist mode of production, not the ins-and-outs of what a communist society would look like or a definitive gameplan as to how one would reach such a society.

here you also asserted that socialism is the transition stage between communism and capitalism

https://i.imgur.com/lnIdDTw.png

shifting goal posts

literal sperging because i called your little ideologue a kike

lmao

and you say you hit a nerve with me?

ecks dee

It's obvious that I'm referring to the socialism which I am a proponent of. I didn't think I had to specify given the obvious fact that I am a socialist of the Marxian variety. The only shifter of goalposts here is you.

if you're too scared to click on my scary link proving you identify with exactly Marx's socialism, then I'm done, I need to go back to studying.

Once again you have displayed your masterly ability to not understand context.

you did not say "Marxist Socialism"

you did not say "what I believed to be socialism"

you said "socialism"

I don't have to specify because everyone can see what kind of socialist I am.

you need 2 b talking about my very specific brand of socialism for it to count

yes you do

when there are those who do not believe in any theory of socialism except for marx

if I call myself a socialist

i need to clarify i refer to national socialism

not marxist socialism

No, I don't. I don't have to do jack-shit in order to appease your petty ass.

ooohh

keep striking nerves there am I?

How childish can you be?

you going back to your childish rebellious years?

or are you still stuck in them?

lol fruity you look like a jack ass