Message from @ram3n
Discord ID: 451494710096429056
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
Donโt blame you theyโre 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
๐คข
โLol we masculine gays were the first gays!โ
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
Chartism falls under the confines of what you wrote