let me see it

um no

where is this drawn from

lol so tell me a marxist country that was capitalism on steroids

the USSR was never capitalism on steroids

????

i want you to tell me how the USSR was capitalism on steroids

or that the workers got treated even worse and that conditions were terrible

cite the same liberal sources you hate

im not going to refute a point if you dont prove it

it is by nature bunk

the claimant substantiates a claim

i am asking you to prove your points

and no china is not heavily capitalistic

the only video links you have given are of jesus movies

from 2003

what is this supposed to be

tell me why the USSR was capitalism on steroids

none of these things are pointing me to the reason why the USSR was heavily capitalist

in fact i can tell you why it wasnt

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html <---- this is completely unsourced

but onto a real point

how can a 5 year plan in a ML country be

capitalist

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/ers/ERSF/1960s/1961/ERSF-06-07-1961_Comparison%20of%20Agriculture%20in%20the%20U.S.%20and%20Soviet%20Union.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP84B00274R000300150009-5.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000498133.pdf
https://mltheory.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/the-results-of-the-1st-2nd-soviet-five-year-plans-soviet-industrial-revolution/

how are five-year plans done by ML states considered capitalism

no one cares about the 25 points

almost none of them were fulfilled

so you are capitulating from any actual information on the wellbeing of soviet citizens and the results of their *pyatiletkas* being so terrible

you do not argue

http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/tenplanks.html this is not a criticism against marxism

no sources whatsoever and manipulating a system to fit a talking point

its just like using this

9 and 6 were completely retarded

9 did not apply to Röhm and the SA during the night of the long knives

For number 6, who determines who has “fitness and capability” ?

What a joke lmao

@Outboarduniform why does he not argue

Inability to comprehend his own position and therefore unable to defend it, probably

He just copy pasted the 25 points for his entire argument lol

do you realize that 1776 and NatSoc are completely incompatible ideologies

you put them side by side very frequently but they're completely different

also Marxism is capitalism on steroids lmao

that's one of the coldest takes I've ever seen

@agag why do these people waste my time

why are you so terrible at mathematics @agag

How is he terrible at math @PebbЛe

what

why are you so bad at math @agag

why do you ask

why are you so bad @agag

at math

I'm not

@Chilliam Ace are you a female

only the female mind could claim polemical attributions to their effeminate unsourced ramblings

you linked wikipedia and an unsourced attempt to link Marx's work to the US and ran away from any attempt at debating the "capitalist nature" of the USSR and pyatiletkas clearly being not capitalist

and when i called you out on that you copy pasted your own words that didnt even have to do with the USSR that you spoke about vaguely a few minutes prior

@Chilliam Ace

you link a wiki on Marxist-Leninism

@Chilliam Ace no context or direct primary sourcing to back any claim

yeah and you don't think me being a marxist-leninist

who has already posted documents about the marxist-leninist state of the USSR not being capitalist

would know about marxist-leninism

it wasnt an argument because: `you linked wikipedia and an unsourced attempt to link Marx's work to the US and ran away from any attempt at debating the "capitalist nature" of the USSR and pyatiletkas clearly being not capitalist
and when i called you out on that you copy pasted your own words that didnt even have to do with the USSR that you spoke about vaguely a few minutes prior`

you said marxism is capitalism on steroids

you cannot change this to mean anything

youre not even talking about your original point again

you cannot stay on topic

you run out of straws to grab

what the fuck is a civic socialism

you dont even know what socialism is

i am waiting for you to tell me why marxism is capitalism on steroids

capitalist plutocracy

capitalist plutocracy

kleptocracy

a corporatocracy is not anything near socialism

tell me why it is socialism

tell the socialist why bailing out private enterprises that entertwine themself with the state

is socialist

and on top of that tell me why marxism is capitalism on steroids

you did not tell me why

you are evading

do it now

ultimatum

tell me what socialism is

do not change the argument

tell me why bailing out private enterprise is socialism and why marxism is capitalism on steroids

tell me why bailing out private enterprise is socialism and why marxism is capitalism on steroids

Was Pinochet a socialist when he bailed out the banks in 1981 when he departed from free floating exchange rates? @Chilliam Ace

@Chilliam Ace

@agag this aint it chief

@PebbЛe so, to be part in a religion, must we all know a thorough understanding in the theology behind it?

or, to be a follower

why would you consider yourself a Christian if you become a Prot and not understand the point of reformation from the RCC

if we understand the Bible, and at least to find some meaning in what we believe, why question it, if others already have

because why would you seek to find some meaning and be infallible from ostracization as an individual when the universal structure of teachings has been transmitted through instruction and consecration since Christ himself

why would you consider yourself a Christian if you ignore the entire structure of Christianity

and read some dusty parchments

because, we assume that the people who do go into theology and attempt to understand the entire background of a religion will do it for you? are those people, then, the only true followers of a religion?

@LiT potato and do you see that happening in prot churches?

what do you mean

when the basis of the apostolic church is `people who do go into theology and attempt to understand the entire background of a religion...for you`

and prot churches dont have any teaching of tradition or history

they are decentralized bible clubs

are you saying that we aren’t influenced enough by the people who do study it then?

I guess that is a major flaw in current protestantism

the idea is that prot churches dont teach anything relating to Christianity but feelsgoodman tier reconciliation with their daily sins out of the bible

If we assume that this is truly what protestantism is, why would we need to defend

it if our lives are based around it

oh wait

i did a dumb

its apostolic Church that Jesus started and has history and tradition stemming for 2k years or decentralized prot churches that rhizomatically extend and break canon and continually fracture the meaning of Christianity

so are you saying that to keep our minds and thoughts unified, we must all delve into the history and tradition of what Jesus intended the church to become?

and question when our branches lead us off that path

The church should belong to the central body that succeeded Christ and the apostles as intended

so the early church that Peter “began”

the Church that Peter held primacy over and that the apostles consecrated their successors for

what we have now is only because we did delve deeper, to seek more meaning in that tradition, that history, that we were left with

No the early church that Christ began when he established it with peter at its head

which Peter spread

@Chilliam Ace bailing out the banks is not Socialism

we had to do it to prevent the entire system from falling apart

@agag notice how he doesn't know anything

Socialism would be nationalizing the banks

muh government do thing? that socailsm

carl marks said government to do thing

@PebbЛe why is he gone

why never respond

he might have gone to sleep at 10pm like a normal person

he was in voice earlier man I saw him in there

@Chilliam Ace was pinochet a socialist

he bailed out the banks in '81

I'm most likely wrong about this, but Sigmund Freud's work mostly depicted the minds of sluts as well as soyboy-manwhores, while also advocating for the conversion of EVERYBODY into a masturbation-addicted mindless soywhore/dykeslut.

You mean his stages of life?

Where one related to a specific part of the body

Oral stage, phallic stage,etc.

Not just that, I'm talking about EVERY piece of his work relating to how, according to him, the entire human brain is driven purely by the desire for sexual pleasure, which INCLUDES his "Stages Of Life" idea.

And people's mothers

He had quite the fixation on people's mothers being the reason for their psychological development

He really liked some motherfuckers, that's for sure.

Back on topic, it's fucking sick.

Well he was right about the oedipus complex

Yes, but of all the things to name them, why would he make them all pertain to sexual acts?

Especially if it has to do with CHILDREN DEVELOPING?

He saw the body as a pretty damn important part of psychology and the idea of cognition wasn't really prevalent at his time.

He was physical with his ideas instead of metaphysical like the idea of cognition today

That's understandable, but why wouldn't he name them as `Consumption`, `Expulsion`, and `Desire`?

The oral stage was consumption basically

That's what I meant.

It makes no sense to give a deeply sexual name to non-sexual events unless you explicitly have a fetish for those events.

Again he identified consumption with insatiability as a child

Not that it's correct

But it is what he thought

About the sexual parts I would have to dig up my memory

I think the phallic stage was penis envy

Wasn't there not just penis *envy*, but also penis *aggression* and penis *compensation*?

(I haven't studied Freud as hard as I probably should've before making these statements. I'm assuming phallic aggression is sexual frustration and/or the desire to rape and that phallic compensation is self-explanatory.)

He used penis envy to describe woman's behavior

I don't think he was a pervert though

Just by the title, the idea of "penis envy" seems like a very accurate description of the main principle behind female homosexuality as well as bullshit such as "female-to-male transgenderism".

And phallic aggression is about puberty yes

Where the desire to reproduce comes into mind which makes you feel weird at first

causing frustration

Would it be bad if the beginning of puberty in a developing male DIDN'T involve being confused shitless?

I think he said that it causes you to be confused shitless

Because you have yet to adapt to it

Like the first time you start getting erections

Mhm, so does that mean, according to Freud, not experiencing angst in your early teen years means you failed to go through puberty? Is it problematic if somebody *didn't* experience disturbance upon achieving their first erection?

Probably how he would interpret that

That was his style

To say because of x stage

He is called the father of psychology because of his observations with patients and relating it to a specific cause which modern psychologists do today but with a better understanding

I already knew that. The reason I started this discussion was because I was suspecting Freud was a diddler. (or at least a closeted diddler)

In other words his views are a stepping stone

Well being a surgeon doesn't mean you like cutting people up lol

he did out of research not pleasure is what I am saying

That makes sense, yet I still can't wrap my head around why he couldn't come up with ANY names for the early-life urges of consumption, expulsion & excitement that didn't involve cocks at all.

Well there were biblical words for that

But that was not the point of his studies

Are we having a debate about if freud was a pedophile?

Yes, yes we are.

lol

Geez that's a question

Probs but he did found modern psychology

Then the neofreudians came around

Which shifted to behavioral theory I think?

Probably.

oh yea conditioning

Classical and operant conditioning were behaviorism

Which was tested with animals

I thought it was Skinner who started behaviorism wasn't it?

Was he a neofreudian?

Turns out he wasn't one

He came up with the conditioning theory

Watson came up with behaviorism

Sorry to shift topics quickly, however, the previous points lead me to yet another disturbing corner of psuedoscience-in-the-name-of-promoting-degeneracy:

John Money. The bizarre man that castrated a kid and made him get fucked by his sibling (while both kids were toddlers) just to prove gender wasn't aligned with sex.

How the fuck did he manage to go from predator-with-a-god-complex to being rated highly credible by most of Academia?

Was that before ethics were a thing

Sounds awfully extreme

Born in 1921

Tranny book published in 1969

Gender was a made up term in the 50s I think

the David Reimer stuff is still very controversial

Really? I could've sworn it's cited almost everywhere by trannies and cis-allies

Oh it was a made up term in the 50s to identify with "one's self"

NO it's not.

Most transgenders don't site MOney.

They'd site judith butler or Serano and the brain chemistry differences in transgenders

which is pretty hard to argue agianst

It is a false distinction between one's identity and biological sex though

Dressing as a girl doesn't make you a girl

No but having the brain chemistry of a female might.

I doubt that is the main drive

Grey vs black matter precentanges in a transgender persons brain are aligned with the sex they idenitfy with

so whether or to what extent gender is a social construct isn't really the issue

But yeah MOney was a monster

No arguments from me on that

Well then the conclusion is that it's a biochemical problem

Or a social problem depending how you look at it.

@Shitford no even transgender advocates don't like him

It's the problem of which came first the chicken or the egg?

Damn, I must've been living under such a fuckin rock.

Social problem is an understatement to political correctness today

It's rather unanswerable unless you can make studies without any societal influences.

Geez not this lol

Sorry when someone says pc i check out no matter who says it

Fine cultural Marxism

Again no idea what that means.

that's even worse

Just take Marxism and apply it to everything, not just economics @Somedudewithaname
That's cultural marx

It's better than postmodern neo-marxist

No one does that though....

marxism is a complex economic critique

pebble would probably have some choice words to say about people calling something Cultural Marxism

It really does focus on class conflict based around economics

Yet again, pay attention to the tenet of `Opressed VS Opressor`. Apply it to EVERYTHING, not just the poor & rich.

What is inherently marxist about that?

Cultural Marxism is a branch of western Marxism, different from the Marxism-Leninism of the old Soviet Union. It is commonly known as “multiculturalism” or, less formally, Political Correctness.

That's more hegelian dielectic than anything else

forgive my spelling i could not be bothered to care lol

I don't

okay?

I mean I guess.

If we just mean marxism to mean anything that talks about opression.

It becomes Cultural-Marxism when you have nogs and spics revolting against whites while claiming that the property of whites was rightfully owned by minorities and was taken by whites.

In other words multiculturalism

Without revolutions, it's just regular postmodernistic intersectionality.

Intersectionallity is not post modern

post modernism rejects all the categories intersectionallity tries to define

marxism, interesctionality, are modernist ideas

Ever heard of doublethink?