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

🤢

^

“Lol we masculine gays were the first gays!”

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

https://i.imgur.com/Ud9w8LF.png

Chartism falls under the confines of what you wrote

yet was, and still is, for all intents and purposes, considered socialism

@🦅 𝓔𝓪𝓰𝓵𝓮 𝓔𝔂𝓮 🦅 additionally this. Nobody in contemporary politics aside from Marxists consider Marx's definition of socialism as that which the old jew did

I don't trust your link, and I never claimed chartism wasn't a form of socialism. I would consider it utopian, but socialism nonetheless.

lmao

Honestly how are you guys still arguing

stamina

"It's over fruity pebbles, I have the moral high ground."

@Adoring Fan >old Jew
Nice pot-shot at one of the greatest minds to ever live. And your ignorant ass obviously hasn't read much of anything by Marx. If you did, you would know that he wrote very little about socialism. His theory is primarily descriptive, and entails a critique of the capitalist mode of production, not the ins-and-outs of what a communist society would look like or a definitive gameplan as to how one would reach such a society.

here you also asserted that socialism is the transition stage between communism and capitalism

https://i.imgur.com/lnIdDTw.png