general
Discord ID: 507035890640486411
101,748 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 305/407
| Next
By that logic fascism is about fashion
@The Big Oof Fair enough, but would you not agree that the state does end up being the controller whether in the hands of a collective or just the govt doing it in the name of people
Not really no
@sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด my friend, as a linguist, that is reatarded.
@(((El Gringo Narigรณn))) Socialism has never been achieved, but that says more about it being a shitty economic system
@The Big Oof BTW I just realized I'm a retard -- there's such a thing as libertarian socialism
Yes there has
so I'm sorry, you're right
I can list so many countries
lol
Thank you
name a few.
he will name Peronist argentina
-Niger
-Djibouti
-Sudan
-Algeria
-Chad
-Bolivia
-Central African Republic
-Zimbabwe
-Angola
-Equatorial Guinea
-Ecuador
-Eritrea
-Suriname
-Republic of Congo
-Timor-Leste
-Cuba
-Togo
-Turkmenistan
-North Korea
-Mozambique
-USSR
-India
-China
-Somalia
-Haiti
-Swaziland
-Pakistan
-Bangladesh
he thinks corporatism is socialism
Oh an Peronism sure
All these countries were former or are
@The Big Oof and yes, though I still maintain that it's because it's a shitty economic system beacuse of its direct contradiction of human nature.
^
Mainly economic nature but
okay
Peronismo was a separate thing. It was, more than anything, a fusion of fascism and socialism into one. No one really knows wth it was
Libertarian socialism does not exist
yes it does
Peperonism*
It doesn't exist, but the concept does
Peronism was fascism but fascism has socialism as it's economics alot of the time
it's retarded but it does exist
Socialism doesn't exist
but the concept does
@Kazimir Malevich best system
It does actually
Wasn't libertarianism coined by socialists?
Socialism is quite there in a few countries
"It does actually"
"Actually, let me restate the meaning I've given a thousand time already, and not leave any room for debate"
@Rex Carthaginis I don't think so
You understand
I'm pretty sure it was
There is no room for debate for my defintion, it's the truth.
It was used as another word for anarchism
@Rex Carthaginis I'd be curious to see a source
I mean you may be right I'd just like to know for sure
argument involves an aspect of compromise. If you want to argue your point, you leave room for yours to be challenged, even if you are sure it's correct. But you aren't @sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด
You can challenge it all you want
You are literally just saying
but you've failed
I haven't, you just went in circles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Belsham first used by a Whig. @Rex Carthaginis
The line between trolling and serious political thought is blurred with every new member of this server.
So did you lol
But I had to go in circles, you're not understanding the basics
actually, sorry, he used it in a different way @Rex Carthaginis
nevermind
@sษชแด
ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด
Wrong. I gave you room to explain the issue with my definition, you refused to take it.
I did
I literally did
No you didn't
Yes I did
read up
```The use of the word "libertarian" to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a letter French libertarian communist Joseph Dรฉjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[18][19][20]```
@Rex Carthaginis okay yes it was, though the American Libertarian movement is very different
The last sentence
it doesn't come from the same origin
in short
+poll Should I kick this guy?
He's not here to be genuine
I'll let you decide
SIDISNOTHERE?
More like
SIDISACOMMIE
Wow nice way to dismiss my argument
Your argument wasn't dismissed. You're arguing like a 5 year old.
and I am done
I guess it's an easy way to dismiss my argument
don't want to take another verbal beating?
Your argument wasn't dismissed, and nobody thinks it was
You d
o
lowkey tryna kick me for it
@The Big Oof The rules never said "no stupid people".
@Kazimir Malevich fair
"try to kick me for it"
-quote from man kicked
Good thing this is not a democracy
but yeah, I agree. I think this guy's retarded. It's entertaining. Let him stay, I say.
@sษชแด
ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด
You're a walking example of the dunning kruger effect. Completely incapable of self reflection
"It's not that I'm making retarded arguments and being an annoying fuck, you just lost!"
Which is more likely?
Honestly I don't care what people on a server filled socialist say
ยฏ\_(ใ)_/ยฏ
You would be annoyed by a communist if he argued like you did, and you know it.
You aren't looking at how you are arguing
Dude, I'm a libertarian monarchist. I'm pretty much as far away from socialism as it's possible to be. I think you're retarded.
It's not because everyone here is a socialist,.
and why it's goddamn annoying
You aren't arguing to convince, or even to learn
you're arguing to boost your ego
You aren't here for discussion, in other words
No I wouldn't
@The Big Oof Though I'd argue there's nothing wrong with necessarily arguing to boost ego, as long as one does it well. It's more if someone does it badly that's the issue.
Every chance I try to give you room to argue the two definitions, you run in circles
They would probably be annoyed by me, when they lose an argument
I told you why the defintion was correct
nib, I'm closer to you politically that probably anyone else here. You lost. Get over it.
You haven't lost the argument, and I know that the dunning kruger effect may have convinced you otherwise, but I don't feel like you've proved anything
Nobody does
I feel like I wasted my time
Place your ego aside
Do you really think you made a good argument here?
I have
Well, I don't, and I think you're retarded.
If I had nothing to say, and wanted to kick you for your views or for me not having an argument, I wouldn't haveopened the door for you to offer a challenge
You don't argue like that in a semantical argument, especially
<:ohno:520006095125872641>
Since it's literally about definitions
Both participants
think they have the correct one
restating the same one over and ovr
will get you nowhere other than pissing the other person off
This is correct
thank you
I will argue not so.
But not for the reasons you stated
Only in the marxist-leninist definition is it correct
Socialism is seen as the transition from capitalism to communism
Remove marxist-leninism
And it makes no sense
Socialism has it's goals to abolish the market
Market socialism?
Not really
Doesn't exist
i will argue the definition above is incorrect since it only makes sense under one version of socialism
it doesn't exist, but the concept does
Marktet socialism is as real as libertarian socialism
it directly contradicts socialism
That is the purpose of a semantical argument, we're literally... arguing definitions
...but you just said
state intervention is socialism
so
Yes
a socialist policy
The USA has a market economy
correct
So is it market socialist?
No it's just a mixed economy
So it has aspects of market socialism, a position I don't agree with, but it's the only one that makes sense
according to this train of logic
that you are putting forth
What exactly do you define as market socialism tho
What?
Who do I contact to partner with
let me put it this way. I am in favor of minarchism. Am I a socialist? @sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด
No?
where did you draw that conclusion from xD
@The Big Oof do I talk to you to partner with?
okay at least you aren't as far gone as some voluntaryists I got into an argument with
what
Let me put it this way. I'm a gamer. Am I a socialist? @sษชแด ษชsษดแดแดสแดสแด
yes
Kaz is Gamerbol gang
the earth is flat and there is a dome separating us from the waters above
True.
How was Peronist Argentina libertarian?
Pincochet's Chile was communist
It wasn't
it was socialist @CronoSaturn
Nah I donโt find that convincing. Not to start up old shit but how would you define socialist mang?
a state with divine providence
A government.
All government is commie.
Except Trump, he's based.
We say this jokingly
But I swear to god some Austrians have a contest to justify something crazier every month
I am pretty sure this fella is one of those Austrians.
Trump is meh
I agree.
whomst deleted my words of wisdom?
You have no n-word pass
gib me n-word pass
No, only mods can have it
gib me mod
You can use any other variation though
reeeeeeee
N1gger
niggger
nignog
At least trump isn't a mainstream centrist
Call your local mailman a kneegger
I guess
trump is a mainstream nigggger
But yeah if we want any real change in America were going to have to get rid of this system entirely
It's not salvageable at this point
real change in america will only come from nukes
Austrians are the new elite
The server I'm gonna partner this one with is based in Austria
Edgy
Anyways did I hear correctly that someone thought that corporatism was socialism
How in any way people come to the idea that America, one of the highest performing countries at nearly every level on the world stage, is a steaming wreck is beyond me
It's not the economy or military
It's the social aspects that are terrible
Is there something in particular you had in mind?
Mordor was the highest performing country of the Middle-Earth.
It's just that its population wasn't too great.
And when America spouts a big glowing evil eye over trump tower Iโm happy to reassess
Well, the dehumanizing and depressing effect of our current economic system in particular
So whatโs dehumanising?
hello
Also I do wanna carry on this convo but I also have work so if I drop out @Spookaswa could we return to this?
Sure
What are we talking about?
Economics?
Spook brought up that they felt the current economic system was dehumanising and I wanted to explore that
I'd agree
I think Capitalism as it's played out through history is incredibly dehumanizing.
Money is the focal point, and nothing else.
I'd like to see someone argue that it's not dehumanizing.
Well, I think it might be possible to save the capitalist system with social democratic reforms, and if that doesn't work, then I guess the only other options we have are fascist corporatism and marxian socialism.
I would disagree, I think capitalism is a toolset that allows people to work together to achieve their goals. I see money as being a store of social credit in that regard, but Iโd like to have a discussion around that space and Iโm open to ideas because I agree that there are things that need to be improved.
How is it any more dehumanizing than any other ideology?
Iโll need to take a rain check on that though as Iโve gotta go to work. Cheers for the discussion though all
Well, to continue with the rest of you, I'd argue that from the beginning it was dehumanizing.
No matter your opinions on feudalism, you had people ripped from country life, which was arguably not that bad for its time, and put into sweatshops.
I'm not arguing we bring back all of feudalism, but it makes you think. Capitalism produced the sweatshops and made traditional living unsustainable.
Capitalism is based on competition, thus making it the most brutal of the three major economic systems. Corporatism is like a mix of capitalism and socialism, it focuses more on class collaboration than competition, private firms are still allowed to exist but they must serve in the interest of the state. Socialism, once it evolves into communism, will have no classes to speak of, at least in theory.
Corporatism is interesting, but there's been problems in the last hundred years with it not being very effective.
I'm interested in distributism
See, I don't hate private property. It's always existed and it should always exist. However, there was something we lost with Capitalism that we had in the middle ages.
Fascist corporatism hasn't been used in the last 50 or so years.
The closest we have gotten since then is social democracy
Was it perfect? No of course not, but it was arguably better than capitalism.
Arguably so
I mean, I'm no economist, but people seemed happier before capitalism. Back then, people had private property, but it wasn't a cashgrab free for all. Standards for trade were a given, and you had guilds to moderate the skilled tradesmen. It was also less centralized, everthing was. You didn't have to worry about multi-national coporations controlling everything.
What seems like a good option to me is the decentralization of distributism. We don't go for any kind of socialism, but we decentralize as much as we can. More local businesses, more co-ops, and more family owned small businesses.
And when you need factories, they ought to be locally owned and controlled.
Capitalism has never really been started, it was just labeled as such in the industrial period
I think that's as silly as saying "Communism has never been tried." We know it hasn't been achieved, but it sure as Hell as been tried.
Well then you didn't get what I said
Well it seems like you're claiming we never had capitalism.
Nope
I'm saying it had no fixed start, you said people seemed happier before capitalism but when was that?
What marks, to you, the start of capitalism?
The Industrial revolution seems to be a vague start, but it's like the Renaissance, there's no hard start.
I'd argue it started much earlier, around the 16th to 17th century, and banking clans can be traced back all the way to the 14th century
But the industrial revolution was the beginning of the capitalism we know today
Banks gay lol
Seems plausible, although the banking isn't all of capitalism.
Point is, it has played a part in destroying traditional society.
Yes
101,748 total messages. Viewing 250 per page.
Prev |
Page 305/407
| Next