Why are you opposed to hard work in dangerous conditions?

this was the pinnacle of capitalism

🤔

@Deleted User this is much better than before.

It doesn't matter about how it stands in capitalism

the fact is he strived to oppose that

and yet china exists in that state today

it's hypocrisy

no it's not

Mao's plan is simple

capitalism will be the means by which communism is established

and we will also kill 70 million to achieve that

he was an idiot

i hope the west goes to war against china in ww3

are you talking about the famine

and we glass that shithole

I wouldn't try making a billion of people unhappy.

numbers don't matter in an age of WMDs

that'd be hypocrisy if you just accused us of being polluters

@Deleted User most will live after the war.

small numbers mean easier wipeout by WMDs, in any case

what, aren't you afraid of nuclear winter? fallout? destroying the earth?

>implying nukes are the only weapons of mass destruction

What to do after the war @Deleted User

yeah, how about you split open the earth's crust too, while you're at it.

>implying we wouldn't just explode a nuke under the ocean and create an enormous tsunami destroying most of china's coastal population

>implying we wouldn't use chemical warfare

your hatred for chyna is amusing

>chemical warfare that would irrevocably damage the world's ecosystems

>nuclear weapons that would irrevocably damage the world's ecosystems

you seem to be having an issue with this "pollution and eco-friendly solutions" thing

@Deleted User so you would not only go to war but also genocide?

>implying china has any ecosystems left

hemp groes everywhere here

Not necessarily genocide

I can get high by walking outside and picking some leafs

you haven't seen western china's ecosystem

stop generalizing

>western china hosts most of the population

your point was about ecosystems

don't change the point

@Deleted User then they will live and will be unhappy with you.

of course it was

@Bernoulli you should consider tourism in our southern provinces. the hills are famous there.

but there are no ecosystems in the east

none of significance

that's where all the population is

It would be very easy to destroy China

oh?

if NATO decided tomorrow

and we went all out

sure

amusing dream

*you're more than welcome to try*

I would love to

but the politicians of nowadays have a lot more shifting to do

edgy

>USA threatens China with WMDS

>China buys them from their corrupt politicians anyways

There would be no threat, that would be counterproductive

🤣

you're right

ok

no threat indeed

only subservience

as history would indicate

That would be more sensible

you don't make your enemy aware of your plans

folks that resort to genocide don't have much creativity for other solutions anyway

enjoy your time

i gave a couple of redpills there

if we were to truly fix societal issues we would use eugenics and genocide

but that comes with a package of ethical issues

someone earlier said most will live after the war

really depends how the war is executed

and how brutal we go

WW3 will be a lot worse than WW2

a war which the Jewish populations of Europe dwarfed their former amounts

I mean

if you want to talk brutality

you know, in Mao's own gulags, the most popular way of killing yourself was via woodchipper

Communism inflicts those casualties on their own people
Fascism does it against the enemy

You talk as if that's a good thing

in any transaction, the one with the most empathy always loses.

transaction?

want to elaborate here

don't need to speak like confucius ffs

wew lad

@Deleted User capitalism is anti-nation by it's nature Dx

pure capitalism

Why not try Syndicalism?

Because the more economic restrictions you put on the individual, the less economic freedom

And economic freedom matters... Why?

you could be religious and avoid politics entirely.

And how'd I say I was restricting economic freedom hugely?

the nation still survives without politics.

It has the potential for it

But does the state?

.-.

what?

you just don't know how basic economics work, do you?

>religious and avoid politics

and then mention the state being whatever church u belong to

yes

because you avoid deviations from the church dogma.

And even then...

you're putting the church into politics

And even then...

not at all

Why does economic freedom matter over positive freedom?

just because you can't question the church doesn't mean it isn't politicized

@Anglican because economic freedom is positive freedom too

in no holy text is it not blasphemous to make a material criticism of the church.

Why should it come before social freedoms? Political ones? Why does economic freedom amtter?

No.

It is a freedom to do whatever you can afford.

You moron.

positive is subjective

It is a negative freedom.

No, this is an objective way of looking at it.

Well you make it so

Negative doesn't refer to bed here.

*bad

economic freedom is a positive influence either way

It means that you are free to do what you can afford/do by your own power

while positive freedom is the freedom to something greater.

economic freedom breeds what we call the "Civic Religion" which has led to today's current predicament.

Hope, happiness.

literally doesn't matter

both sides strive for idealism

pick one over the other

Freedom to faith and patriotism is a positive freedom.

While freedom to fuck a cow is a negative freedom.

who made up these definitions?

It is simple; postive freedoms are those of quality and of real importance. Negatives are not. They are primal.

it isn't necessary at all

it's self explanatory

Sorry, do I have to say every single time their definations?

what?

you should

I mean

it isn't his job to educate himself

I don't understand how this got into a discussion of positive and negative freedoms

silly to define such things

if you make a claim, you support it, if it needs definition, one should define it. it's not the task of your opponent to do this.

it is entirely subjective

It doesn't mean bad or good.

value is objective

Okay, come on buddy. Let us talk.

shouldn't have negative or positive on it then

Starting with negative freedoms; it is the freedoms which libertarians/anarchists generally want when they aren't on the left.

It is a freedom to do what you want to do if you have the ability.

I already know this

For example, wanna fuck a dog?

Got the ability to hold it down and not get caught?

Go at it chum.

economic freedom isn't negative freedom

Whilst positive freedoms are different in their nature; they are a freedom to purpose.

Most all of freedom to thought fall under this.

It is.

The market is a perfect example of negative freedoms at kwor.

*work

Why do you disagree with self determination and individualism?

you cannot control every aspect of somebody

sure, some people may find postive freedom in the market. But this is the overwhelming majority that don't.

Did I say that?

I already know your views

you want authoritarianism in most areas of life

you don't want economic freedom

nor freedom of political expression

Not really.

I mean, the expression of ideals are important.

Except that it is a one state

I adhear to a belief in a single party democracy.

one party state

LIke how they had in the USSR and Thrid Reich

there were mass meetings, especially so in the USSR, and the people would hold scurtinty to the party members

every working man who wished to attend was allowed to, and any question could be asked.

They still hold no power

no influence on them

A party member was reviewed on their life, their-

it is merely a mind game

No?

you feel as though you influence it

They elect their party member who would go on to repersent them.

but it's ultimately up to the rulers

No...

No it is not.

Fuck, Stalin himself was payed less then a doctor

Doesn't matter how much they were paid

they still hold the power

How can you opt for so much control over somebody?

How profoundedly numb skulled can he go?

single party democracy, might as well go for monarchy

Did I say that?

Your politics say it

I am asking for justification

you realise how bad life would be by that

for the individual

bad as in little freedom

No, they don't. The entire point is to rid ourselves of mud in the wheels democracy in the west while maintaning our freedom to resist the government without resorting to the rifle.

Every citizen has a say, and leaders would be scrutinized as needed.

except that you want limit economic freedom

_painful sigh_

Of course I want to limit economic freedom.

to what extent

It is not a good freedom

it is certainly

it's good for the individual

No

Do you want to own a gun?

Firstly, instating worker democracy as the only mode of production in more-then-oen-man busnesses.

it adheres to the individuals wants and needs, it is perfectly good

Have you heard of personal property?

No

Personal property is your watch and home.

Private property is the watch factory.

>falling for it

@Anglican this guy has a point

It belongs to teh workers who use it.

*the

Workers control of the means of production

That's not a good concept

Hierarchy is vital

No. It is.

How can you trust the workers to maintain the factory

Hey, ego. Can you help me find the reports on that canadian Co-op that weathered the storm of several recessions and is still growing and active?

It is ran directly by the workers vote

Too many ifs and buts

and it only improves

just to restructure an already working system

I have a store where I live, it is a employee owned store that has a bunch of goods. Like, huge amonts.

From food to giant teddy bears.

And it is popular.

>so this means communism is good

Did I SAY ANYTHING ABOTU COMMUNISM YOU BAFFON?

*about

Your ideology may as well be communism

it's in the same rat den

It isn't pragmatic

just to restructure the current system because it isn't perfect

come back to me when we have automated labour

How many "memes" do you have to post @Deleted User ?

It doesn't really help your argument

Also, I'm not pragmatic?