#debate (Discord ID: 450683222653796353) in Imperium Political Simulator, page 3
Security Advisory: Links in messages may lead to maliciously operated websites that could track your IP address and reveal your identity, or they may contain harmful files. The DiscordLeaks team does not check links and cannot make any statements about the safety of following these links.
Some ways to protect yourself are:
- Do not open files downloaded from links, and do not run any programs that try to download themselves to your computer.
- Use anonymization measures such as Tor Browser or a VPN.
If you are using the Privacy Badger or other privacy extensions, you may need to whitelist Discord and related domains in order for the images to load.
you said yourself you arent allowed to sell for profit if you make your own wares
Again, capitalism = private property + waged labour
yes, and selling a duck toy for a profit is a wage
I love selling stuff
Wage is what you get for work producing stuff you don't own
ah of course
so the service industry
has no wages
because they dont produce anything
Service industry sucks
psychologists dont have wages
doctors dont have wages
personal trainers dont have wages
Of course they have
Providing services = producing labor force
wage is what you get for work producing stuff you don't own
This Ukrainian has some pretty good English
and some pretty bad logic
Better than those fucking irish
Their English is awful
Nah, I feel that my English is shitty
back to the topic
you're a freelance psychologist
you work for a wage
you own yourself
you work only for yourself
that is private
and has a wage
But you don't own the people you help
your wage isnt earned while working for someone else
You produce their mental health
>you produce their mental health
i have yet to hear something this retarded in my life
there is no production in services
production requires tangibility
Fron the POV of economy, producing stuff and providing services are the same
Producing stuff increases the number and quality of stuff
Providing services increases the number and quality of labor force
Labor force is a good too
you produce nothing by telling a guy he has depression, who then pays you. And if you do, and he pays you and you earn a wage like that, the man who makes a duck doesnt own his customer either
so he is by your definition the same
aka a corporation, aka capitalistic
You improve that guy's mental health, and then he can work better and make more stuff/provide more services, that's why you get paid
The man who makes a duck on its own isn't earning a wage because he owns the duck
A service is economically productive. There is a whole type of economy called the tertiary economy where the primary source of GDP is services, i.e., the developed world.
Simply because those services are not physically tangible doesn't make them irrelevant.
@Advocatus Diaboli you owns the means to achieve the mental health
You help improve that guy's mental health because you want to help people and you charge it because you need to earn a living your self.
So, you want to help or you want to make money?
You want to help and make money so you can live.
stop the word masturbation
you own the means to achieve the person's mental health
A comfortable life.
by the same logic, a lawyer helping a man to get out of legal trouble does not own the man, but he owns the knowledge to help him get out of legal trouble
your allegories make no sense
@Adoring Fan If I'm working for a hospital, I de jure temporarily lease my abilities to help people to the hospital (like it's not me helping, it's the hospital providing the service), that's the reason why people give the money to the hospital and then I'm getting paid by the hospital and that's a wage. If I'm a stand-alone psychologist, I alone own the means to cure the patient, but then the money I get is not a wage.
yes it is
legally speaking they are wages
first you went to thinking that psychologists have wages, now they dont
make up your fucking mind, tankie
the problem here is that you have no understanding of what you say, you merely try to fit everything into your perverted definitions of reality, so that you can apply reality to your worldview
that is not how it works.
and mind you
even if it is
like you say it is
the soviet union still had wages
now i know
You miss the point
youre going to say if youre a doctor earns wages in the ussr it's ok because he "owns the production"
yet he doesnt
Sure he does
he does only on papaer.
in practice he owns nothing
this democratic ownership is a falsehood
he can't take a machine from a hospital and put it in his own home
That's what you think
no that's what I know
Yes he can't because he's not the only owner
when everybody is the owner
no one is
The car is owned by all the people
That’s a paradoxical statement
screaming "WHAT" while your soy is about to spill wont retract from the point that i made
the car cant be owned by all people
because people had locks
you couldnt take another man's car
you couldnt go into another man's house
Ambulance car is public property owned by all people
just because you *say* it was public, does not make it so
it is owned by the state
not by the people
by the people is a fancy, populist phrase that people love to use
And another man's car and house are PERSONAL, not private or public property
it is not so in actuality
In a true state of the people, it would be owned by the people.
ah of course
And it was in the USSR
here we go
not true communism
word masturbation from post modernist idiots
Pls differ socialism from communism
Communism is stateless
well then the ussr wasnt communism
now was it
The USSR was socialist
I actually just got done explaining this in the fascist channel since these goys don't have a firm understanding of communism.
On the other hand the USSR was not legitimate socialism. The worker was made a slave to the state.
Just because something is publicly owned doesn't mean you really own it. Everything was subordinated to the state.
The USSR was brutally repressive in all of the wrong ways and economically mismanaged itself into collapse.
Please put in mind that Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Gorbachev conducted economical reforms that disrupted the economy
that is beside the point
people were slaves to the state under lenin and stalin and trotsky
You can't make the whole population slaves whilst maintaining the most effective education system in the world
>this level of delusion
STFU nazi, you're not the one to talk about slavery
The Soviet education system was "effective"? Holy fuck no it was not.
1917 - 17% literacy
1957 - first artificial satellite
It was effective at boosting literacy. Congrats the USSR achieved parity with the rest of the world. But the Soviet education system was marred by nepotism and rapid ideologism.
Read The Truth That Killed by Georgi Markov to know what the Eastern Bloc was really like.
You're crazy deluded.
@Advocatus Diaboli stfu yourself faggot. There was no slavery under NatSocialism
@εïз irma εïз I'm from Ukrainian teacher family, I know what I'm talking about
USSR enslaved its own
it sure doesnt seem like you do
Enslaving anyone is bad, even non-citizens
inb4 Gulag is a penal labour camp systm
Slavery is wrong in general
My parents lived in Hungary during the communist era.
No man a slave
heheh penal labor exists in the us checkmate its the exact same as the gulag system so you cant be critical
What a shit argument.
It's a kind of punishment
Nothing bad here
so was slavery then
here's the thing
a criminal in the US can't be sent to prison for wrongthink
Well Stalin used the penal labor system more for its labor than for penalizing people for committing crimes.
it's completely different
the gulag was a sham
I'm reading and it's really good
it was created fraudulently to mask the fact that they wanted slave labor
I've read it
they sent released prisoners of war to the gulags for forced labor
but it's not slavery
you read 1984 and you don't remember wrongthink
Ever heard of filtration camps
I’ve read it too and it’s exactly why I don’t want a fascist government
I can make 1984 look like a utopia
Most fascists are not totalitarian.
also 1984 was totalitarian
irma is right
I remember wrongthink, doublethink and so on
fascism is not what 1984 was about
Totalitarians are terrible
1984 is closer to Stalinism than fascism by leaps and bounds.
it specifically was written as a response to stalinism
George Orwell was a socialist who was critical of the Soviet Union. And you think he was writing about fascism?
*1984* was specifically about fascism and its dangers.
totalitarianism in general
persecuted heresy more cruelly than the Inquisition
had done. And they imagined that they had learned from
the mistakes of the past; they knew, at any rate, that one
must not make martyrs. Before they exposed their victims
to public trial, they deliberately set themselves to destroy
their dignity. They wore them down by torture and solitude
until they were despicable, cringing wretches, confessing
whatever was put into their mouths, covering themselves
with abuse, accusing and sheltering behind one another,
whimpering for mercy. And yet after only a few years the
same thing had happened over again. The dead men had
become martyrs and their degradation was forgotten. Once
again, why was it? In the first place, because the confessions
that they had made were obviously extorted and untrue. We
do not make mistakes of that kind. All the confessions that
are uttered here are true. We make them true. And above
all we do not allow the dead to rise up against us. You must
Free eBooks at Planet eBook.com 321
stop imagining that posterity will vindicate you, Winston.
Posterity will never hear of you. You will be lifted clean out
from the stream of history. We shall turn you into gas and
pour you into the stratosphere. Nothing will remain of you,
not a name in a register, not a memory in a living brain. You
will be annihilated in the past as well as in the future. You
will never have existed.’
from the book
specifically to stalinism however Orwell did also include hitler under the umbrella
You added 'the Russians' to the beginning, admit it
"Nineteen Eighty-Four uses themes from life in the Soviet Union and wartime life in Great Britain as sources for many of its motifs. Some time at an unspecified date after the first American publication of the book, producer Sidney Sheldon wrote to Orwell interested in adapting the novel to the Broadway stage. Orwell sold the American stage rights to Sheldon, explaining that his basic goal with Nineteen Eighty-Four was imagining the consequences of Stalinist government ruling British society:"
1984 was ran like a socialist country but lead by totalitarians
>wasnt about the soviet union
1984 and Animal Farm were written as allegorical pieces for the Soviet Union.
Stop denying reality.
this is what i am saying
the communist has to bend reality
to make himself correct
Like Dr. strange
tankies and the real world are oxymorons
*Animal Farm*, yes, but not *1984*.
1984 was not specifically about Fascism.
I really gotta read animal farm
It’s about totalitarianism.
Ok Nazis prepare your arguments for the next time because I have to go
I am not a Nazi.
Appreciate the effort.
go eat your stale salo, filthy communist
Nazis and Commies both a subhuman filth to me
okkk time to debate libertarianism
Cool a libertarian.
Remember to join the Anglosphere Fascist Party
1984 was about oligarchal collectivism.
libertarianism relies on the idea that you have to have freedom in order to prosper
I tend to disagree
I think that freedom as a concept relies heavily on hedonism, which is in of itself not freedom
libertarians want freedom from the state, i want freedom from urges and desires
once you are free from your own weaknesses, only then are you actually free.
>1984 borrowed themes directly from the soviet union
>orwells works are defined as being critical of the soviet union, as a socialist he was immensely critical of them
>"b-but its not as obvious as animal farm so it must be broad"
having the ability to smoke meth and get fucked by trannies is so wonderful, but i'd rather live without it
The bantu claim that they were the same as the nomadic black tribesmen who SOMETIMES wander into southern africa because they are both african tribes.
I'd say liberation from vice is preferable to liberation to fuck whatever you want or pump whatever substances in your body
In terms of which is the better result for the common man and woman
i guess not
at least the communist tried
So what are we talking about in here?
Sorry at a family function
Im not a die hard libertarian but I'd love to talk to you more @Adoring Fan
who a libtard