• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

Discussion Socialism Discussion Thread

I see DuskIsHere is more interested in creating antagonisms, considering they’ve only responded to people who said mean things to them.

So I’ll ask again, since I wasn’t worth the reply… how is South Korea a positive example of a free market when chaebols, who exist due to heavily regulated market activity and choke out competition in the region, are a presence? Never mind how the state basically works in service to them (see example: widespread suppression of unionization that would make nearly every other OECD nation jealous)

Additionally, I will agree with others, you saying you only see prosperity in SK is like white middle-class people pretending that poverty isn’t rampant because they don’t witness it in their protected suburban enclave. Maybe just… venture outside the urban centre once?
 
Last edited:
No discussion of Korea, North or South, is complete without mentioning the role the western powers had in the Korean War, where they bombed the country to ashes, destroying 85% of its buildings and killing millions of people.


Or that ever since North Korea has been heavily sanctioned and that South Korea emerged from a long standing dictatorship that took decades to dismantle.
 
I think the funniest thing to happen is that, when it was pointed out that they must be well-to-do to be able to move to and from SK, at least enough that they aren't crushed under the weigh of SK's economic strife, they point out that, no, they actually had someone else pay for their basic needs.

Like, as if that gives them MORE perspective on what it's like to live in SK for poor people lmao
 
6yxxh1F.jpg

Just got done with some really difficult theory. Anyone have any type of video explainer on this!?
 
Also, just want to touch on the "actual existing socialism" argument that was presented.

In order for the argument that any implementation of socialism inherently degrades to untenable and deadly circumstances irrespective of the clear and self-evident negative interference from the imperial core, one must be of the opinion that there's no such thing as a flawed or violent implementation of capitalism. Because the moment you start arguing for capitalist reform, or placing one capitalist government over another because of war crimes/authoritarianism/whatever else one might use to make one country more exemplary over others, one must also acknowledge that there are better and diverse potential implementations of socialism that could be available when freed from the interference of the imperial core.
On that last point, the amount of good socialist ideas snuffed out by the likes of McCarthy and Hoover alone has likely robbed the world of a way forward that would benefit everyone because those two and their capitalist friends were terrified of a counter-hegemonic way of constructing the world, irrespective of whether or not it was authoritarian. And it should not escape notice that they were most terrified of the oppressed in the US being most "susceptible" to turning to socialism, like black people and the LGBTQ (gee, wonder why that would be), or using that alleged susceptibility, that "commie panic", as means for justifying continued bigotry and oppression.

I myself, despite my many objections to capitalism for traits that I perceive are inherent to it, acknowledge that there are degrees of severity in its brutality, ways to mitigate the worst of its current norms and that some have never been considered due to a lack of imagination, ignorance of those excesses in brutality, outright rejection by the ruling classes and those capitalists who enjoy an outsized benefit to the world as it is, or some combination of any of the above. (see example: FDR's Keynesian economic policies, which are a moderate step up from what we have now, being so popular that he got 4 terms got folks who didn't like them because they weren't free-market enough so butthurt that the 22nd Amendment happened) That such an even-handedness is rarely afforded to socialism, both historically and (as shown earlier) currently, does not escape my notice.
 
Last edited:
I think that ignoring how capital changed the way Socialism or Marxism could be implemented is also incredibly important in understanding why a country like Cuba for instance would move to an “authoritarian” government.

The base goal of a democratic system is to understand the will of the people in a meaningful way by giving them directly a chance to vote on the way their country will move. But there’s an incredibly flawed concept in that you can only vote within a single time frame for one specific vote, this is alleviated by democracies doing things like, primaries and multiple elections to try and better gauge the basis of their people, but it’s an amazing flaw that has been taken advantage of during its entire existence. Why is this singular time frame a major flaw? Because it means that you no longer get the will of the people, but instead get the will of the people at a very specific moment. That moment, as we’ve seen with American politics, can be shaped and changed by new information, or most importantly, by a changing narrative that can be shaped by forces outside of your control. This is why political advertising is so important to a candidate, and why politicians currently spend millions upon millions (probably closer to billions)of dollars in seen spending.


This normally wouldn’t be an issue if “outside sources” were mostly based around national opposing forces. But, as we’ve seen with Israel, it’s actually very easy for political narratives to be shaped by international influence, even some strident libs will say that “Russia stole the election” in 2016, and part of that was an influence campaign of narrative. For capital, this isn’t a problem, because no matter what outside influence you have, you will reinforce capital at the expense of the people of said nation. Russia may have theoretically, “stole the election,” but both forces in this case, America and the Russians, will both work inherently to defend capital against competition.

So here you are as Cuba, a country that has seen vast quantities of wealth fleeing from the country, and thus lack hard money in the current economic system. Not only that, their opponent is literally the richest and most powerful nation on earth at the time, and by a very large margin at that. Without authoritarianism of some sort, the socialist agenda of the country will merely fall due to the emotional nature of elections within a moment. It’s literally impossible to be in “good times” all the time, and soon a Socialist nation will have disease, ecological issues, or simply random fluctuation within an international economy can lead to exports becoming valuable and devalued at a moments notice. People who are upset will vote against the ruling party, and new leader will get put in charge. This would be fine if the competing ideology respected socialism in any meaningful and human way, but as we have seen time and time again, capital would rather have a mass murdering dictator take control rather then a respected middle of the road leftist, which means capital, with its vastly superior resources, will push somebody who will effectively not only end the revolutionary struggle to change their government, but also will act to dismantle the socialist and democratic movement in place. Capital has the inbuilt advantage of being in power and having way more wealth, and thus your ability to have free and fair elections with groups who are interested in maintaining your democracy are incredibly limited.

If the Capital didn’t intervene on the tons of time socialism achieved electoral victories, then we’d have a much much different idea of what Socialism would inherently be. But that’s the reason it’s so linked to “authoritarianism.” It’s very very difficult to do with antagonistic international capital.
 
Without authoritarianism of some sort, the socialist agenda of the country will merely fall due to the emotional nature of elections within a moment.
Let's not start rewriting history so that the worst actions of the post-Revolution regime in Cuba are somehow justified as inherently anti-capitalist.

I'm bisexual. If I lived in Cuba after the revolution, I would have been subject to police raids and beatings, and sent off to a labour camp to "work the gay away". The Castro regime was vehemently homophobic, and saw queer sexuality as a leftover form of American decadence. The Cuban government wanted their society to embody a patriarchal, masculine form of socialism, and that meant being every bit as oppressive on LGBT minorities as their American counterparts, if not moreso.

Nothing about that was a necessity of being anti-capitalist. Castro could have quite easily supported and emancipated LGBT citizens in Cuba, and that would not have undermined the Revolution in any way at all. But he and his ministers didn't do that. They promoted their own anti-gay, anti-bi and anti-trans legislation and made life awful for LGBT citizens, many of whom fled Cuba.

We can argue for the benefits of socialist governance without making apologia for homophobic governments that inflicted labour camps on their own people.
 
For me, marxism is as extremist as authoritarianism, and generally winds up as authoritarianism (with extra red sauce)……. I find americans have such a hilarious perspective of what makes something marxist. …..
Hmmm . . . -so what makes something Marxist for you, DIH? And are you referring to a book? a nation? a policy?
 
Let's not start rewriting history so that the worst actions of the post-Revolution regime in Cuba are somehow justified as inherently anti-capitalist.

I'm bisexual. If I lived in Cuba after the revolution, I would have been subject to police raids and beatings, and sent off to a labour camp to "work the gay away". The Castro regime was vehemently homophobic, and saw queer sexuality as a leftover form of American decadence. The Cuban government wanted their society to embody a patriarchal, masculine form of socialism, and that meant being every bit as oppressive on LGBT minorities as their American counterparts, if not moreso.

Nothing about that was a necessity of being anti-capitalist. Castro could have quite easily supported and emancipated LGBT citizens in Cuba, and that would not have undermined the Revolution in any way at all. But he and his ministers didn't do that. They promoted their own anti-gay, anti-bi and anti-trans legislation and made life awful for LGBT citizens, many of whom fled Cuba.

We can argue for the benefits of socialist governance without making apologia for homophobic governments that inflicted labour camps on their own people.

I never mentioned any of this and youre completely ignoring my points to go, "yeah but this country did bad thing in the 50s," as if that is at all relevant to my point.

Also, its not like Capitalist nations have a good track record on LGBTQ rights either.
 
I think that ignoring how capital changed the way Socialism or Marxism could be implemented is also incredibly important in understanding why a country like Cuba for instance would move to an “authoritarian” government.

The base goal of a democratic system is to understand the will of the people in a meaningful way by giving them directly a chance to vote on the way their country will move. But there’s an incredibly flawed concept in that you can only vote within a single time frame for one specific vote, this is alleviated by democracies doing things like, primaries and multiple elections to try and better gauge the basis of their people, but it’s an amazing flaw that has been taken advantage of during its entire existence. Why is this singular time frame a major flaw? Because it means that you no longer get the will of the people, but instead get the will of the people at a very specific moment. That moment, as we’ve seen with American politics, can be shaped and changed by new information, or most importantly, by a changing narrative that can be shaped by forces outside of your control. This is why political advertising is so important to a candidate, and why politicians currently spend millions upon millions (probably closer to billions)of dollars in seen spending.


This normally wouldn’t be an issue if “outside sources” were mostly based around national opposing forces. But, as we’ve seen with Israel, it’s actually very easy for political narratives to be shaped by international influence, even some strident libs will say that “Russia stole the election” in 2016, and part of that was an influence campaign of narrative. For capital, this isn’t a problem, because no matter what outside influence you have, you will reinforce capital at the expense of the people of said nation. Russia may have theoretically, “stole the election,” but both forces in this case, America and the Russians, will both work inherently to defend capital against competition.

So here you are as Cuba, a country that has seen vast quantities of wealth fleeing from the country, and thus lack hard money in the current economic system. Not only that, their opponent is literally the richest and most powerful nation on earth at the time, and by a very large margin at that. Without authoritarianism of some sort, the socialist agenda of the country will merely fall due to the emotional nature of elections within a moment. It’s literally impossible to be in “good times” all the time, and soon a Socialist nation will have disease, ecological issues, or simply random fluctuation within an international economy can lead to exports becoming valuable and devalued at a moments notice. People who are upset will vote against the ruling party, and new leader will get put in charge. This would be fine if the competing ideology respected socialism in any meaningful and human way, but as we have seen time and time again, capital would rather have a mass murdering dictator take control rather then a respected middle of the road leftist, which means capital, with its vastly superior resources, will push somebody who will effectively not only end the revolutionary struggle to change their government, but also will act to dismantle the socialist and democratic movement in place. Capital has the inbuilt advantage of being in power and having way more wealth, and thus your ability to have free and fair elections with groups who are interested in maintaining your democracy are incredibly limited.

If the Capital didn’t intervene on the tons of time socialism achieved electoral victories, then we’d have a much much different idea of what Socialism would inherently be. But that’s the reason it’s so linked to “authoritarianism.” It’s very very difficult to do with antagonistic international capital.
Good post!
 
Let's not start rewriting history so that the worst actions of the post-Revolution regime in Cuba are somehow justified as inherently anti-capitalist.

I'm bisexual. If I lived in Cuba after the revolution, I would have been subject to police raids and beatings, and sent off to a labour camp to "work the gay away". The Castro regime was vehemently homophobic, and saw queer sexuality as a leftover form of American decadence. The Cuban government wanted their society to embody a patriarchal, masculine form of socialism, and that meant being every bit as oppressive on LGBT minorities as their American counterparts, if not moreso.

Nothing about that was a necessity of being anti-capitalist. Castro could have quite easily supported and emancipated LGBT citizens in Cuba, and that would not have undermined the Revolution in any way at all. But he and his ministers didn't do that. They promoted their own anti-gay, anti-bi and anti-trans legislation and made life awful for LGBT citizens, many of whom fled Cuba.

We can argue for the benefits of socialist governance without making apologia for homophobic governments that inflicted labour camps on their own people.
I think some or most of that Cuban bias against alternative sexuality is the result of culture, history, and ignorance.

If you explore socialist websites in the US you will see platforms and mission statements that fully advocate for LGBTQ rights. So I can’t ascribe Cuba’s bias to Marxism or socialism.
 
I think some or most of that Cuban bias against alternative sexuality is the result of culture, history, and ignorance.

If you explore socialist websites in the US you will see platforms and mission statements that fully advocate for LGBTQ rights. So I can’t ascribe Cuba’s bias to Marxism or socialism.
It's rooted in the Abrahamic belief system as well as the Patriarchal social system that is prominent in pretty much every "western" nation at the time.
 
It's rooted in the Abrahamic belief system as well as the Patriarchal social system that is prominent in pretty much every "western" nation at the time.
Yes. And many in the US have overcome it with education and good choices in media. We know such biases have a long history and that those prejudices have only produced suffering and more ignorance.
 
I never mentioned any of this and youre completely ignoring my points to go, "yeah but this country did bad thing in the 50s," as if that is at all relevant to my point.

Also, its not like Capitalist nations have a good track record on LGBTQ rights either.
You never mentioned it because, as far as I could tell, you were making some sort of argument about how the Cuban government was necessarily authoritarian as a sort of response to capitalism. I pointed out that the government did plenty of heinous things that had no bearing at all on opposing capitalism, except by of way of arguing that homosexuality is in itself an expression of capitalist decadence.

The homophobia and transphobia of the Castro regime went far beyond the 50s and 60s and up through to the end of the 20th Century. It is only comparatively recently that LGBT Cubans have been able to express their right to protest, campaign and get a better quality of life for themselves.

I'd rather people not sweep that under the rug when discussing how right or successful the Cuban revolution and regime was. A socialist revolution means dick if it means people like me still being sent to labour camps.
 
You never mentioned it because, as far as I could tell, you were making some sort of argument about how the Cuban government was necessarily authoritarian as a sort of response to capitalism. I pointed out that the government did plenty of heinous things that had no bearing at all on opposing capitalism, except by of way of arguing that homosexuality is in itself an expression of capitalist decadence.

The homophobia and transphobia of the Castro regime went far beyond the 50s and 60s and up through to the end of the 20th Century. It is only comparatively recently that LGBT Cubans have been able to express their right to protest, campaign and get a better quality of life for themselves.

I'd rather people not sweep that under the rug when discussing how right or successful the Cuban revolution and regime was. A socialist revolution means dick if it means people like me still being sent to labour camps.
You're completely ignoring my point to make a statement that I'm not sure is based on any type of real critique beyond just wanting to disagree with me about something because you can't actually make an argument against my point about how socialism propagates in the real world.

I'm not justifying the Castros anti-lgbtq stances dude, I never mentioned them, and I never did apologia about the anti-lgbtq movement. I'm implying the real politics that occurred within the region as an example of why the modern "socialist" state is deemed to be "authoritarian."
 
You're completely ignoring my point to make a statement that I'm not sure is based on any type of real critique beyond just wanting to disagree with me about something because you can't actually make an argument against my point about how socialism propagates in the real world.

I'm not justifying the Castros anti-lgbtq stances dude, I never mentioned them, and I never did apologia about the anti-lgbtq movement. I'm implying the real politics that occurred within the region as an example of why the modern "socialist" state is deemed to be "authoritarian."
Again, you said that Cuba's authoritarianism came about as a response to capitalism. You used phrases such as "without authoritarianism, socialism will fail" and talked about how the problem with democracy is it leads to people making the wrong choices.

If I seem disagreeable to you, it's because I disagree with how your framing of things ignores the real world misery inflicted on thousands of people. You saying you never mentioned them is no excuse: Castro's treatment of the LGBT population is well known, as his belief that patriarchal, cis, heterosexual identity should be at the forefront of the socialist movement.

If I seem disagreeable, it's because I believe emancipation of LGBT should be at the heart of any socialist movement. I believe gay, lesbian, trans and non binary folk should be at the front of the movement, helping lead the change.

So when someone starts saying something along the lines of "Yeah, the cuban government were authoritarian, but you can understand why" that winds me up. Because it ignores the suffering of thousands of LGBT Cubans. Because it implies that the sacrifice of sexual and gender equality is an understandable sacrifice in the name of revolution. Because it implies the socialist struggle is more important than the struggle against the patriarchy, or against homophobia.

You may not think you said any of that. But I implore you to look at the words you wrote, and think about how that sort of terminology about a homophobic regime comes across to someone who is not straight, and who would have suffered under that regime.
 
Again, you said that Cuba's authoritarianism came about as a response to capitalism. You used phrases such as "without authoritarianism, socialism will fail" and talked about how the problem with democracy is it leads to people making the wrong choices.

If I seem disagreeable to you, it's because I disagree with how your framing of things ignores the real world misery inflicted on thousands of people. You saying you never mentioned them is no excuse: Castro's treatment of the LGBT population is well known, as his belief that patriarchal, cis, heterosexual identity should be at the forefront of the socialist movement.

If I seem disagreeable, it's because I believe emancipation of LGBT should be at the heart of any socialist movement. I believe gay, lesbian, trans and non binary folk should be at the front of the movement, helping lead the change.

So when someone starts saying something along the lines of "Yeah, the cuban government were authoritarian, but you can understand why" that winds me up. Because it ignores the suffering of thousands of LGBT Cubans. Because it implies that the sacrifice of sexual and gender equality is an understandable sacrifice in the name of revolution. Because it implies the socialist struggle is more important than the struggle against the patriarchy, or against homophobia.

You may not think you said any of that. But I implore you to look at the words you wrote, and think about how that sort of terminology about a homophobic regime comes across to someone who is not straight, and who would have suffered under that regime.
This is absolutely unhinged behavior my friend. Please consider actually reading what I said before responding to me
 
Let's not start rewriting history so that the worst actions of the post-Revolution regime in Cuba are somehow justified as inherently anti-capitalist.

I'm bisexual. If I lived in Cuba after the revolution, I would have been subject to police raids and beatings, and sent off to a labour camp to "work the gay away". The Castro regime was vehemently homophobic, and saw queer sexuality as a leftover form of American decadence. The Cuban government wanted their society to embody a patriarchal, masculine form of socialism, and that meant being every bit as oppressive on LGBT minorities as their American counterparts, if not moreso.

Nothing about that was a necessity of being anti-capitalist. Castro could have quite easily supported and emancipated LGBT citizens in Cuba, and that would not have undermined the Revolution in any way at all. But he and his ministers didn't do that. They promoted their own anti-gay, anti-bi and anti-trans legislation and made life awful for LGBT citizens, many of whom fled Cuba.

We can argue for the benefits of socialist governance without making apologia for homophobic governments that inflicted labour camps on their own people.
If you lived in America after the Cuban revolution, you’d be subject to the lavender scare, police violence/persecution and lynchings. As others have mentioned, there was few places on the planet where you were free from homosexual discrimination in that time period, since colonialism had ensured that the moral codes of Abrahamic religion that labeled us unrepentant sinners had spread to every possible corner of the globe, Cuba included, and many governmental justifications for such bigotry were rampant, including outright criminalization, in nearly all of them.

Capitalist nations at some point in history called LGBTQ people “commies”, “subversives”, risks to national security or just jailed us because they thought we were icky, while socialist societies at some point in their history labeled us as “decadent bourgeoisie holdovers” that have no place in socialist society and did largely the same things that capitalist nations did. Turns out nearly everyone sucked at giving dignity to the LGBTQ in the 50s and 60s. No one should be shocked by this.

As a counter-point, East Germany shows us what’s possible in a socialist society, decriminalizing homosexuality in 1969, beginning to argue in the late 70s and early 80s that socialism without queer emancipation is bullshit, which gained significant traction in 1985. So we can see what is/was possible.

Queer emancipation is not a factor of what economic or governmental system you live under and never has been. It’s about the will to break free from institutional and cultural bigotry that can and does exist regardless of other considerations, and any nation has the capacity to break free from it, but not all will do so. This is the reality we live in. Hell, trans people are still under an immense campaign of persecution and violence right now in several corners of the world, and LGB rights are being clawed back all over the globe, if they ever existed at all in some places. And we should all be mad that it’s still a point of contention like this. And I think all of us in this thread ARE mad about it.
 
Last edited:
…. I believe emancipation of LGBT should be at the heart of any socialist movement. I believe gay, lesbian, trans and non binary folk should be at the front of the movement, helping lead the change.
Socialism is about, and will be about, ending private ownership of production for private profit. It will be about liberating the working class and about we, the working class, taking control.

The working class includes gays, trans, . . . . all LGBTQ working class. A capitalist gay person will not be “at the front of the movement, helping lead the change”. Such a person will be removed from power and control over workers. The condition of being LGBTQ will not be primary. Being a working class person will be primary. But I would suggest a massive LGBTQ participation so that their vote is registered and they are properly represented and provided for.
 
Again, you said that Cuba's authoritarianism came about as a response to capitalism. You used phrases such as "without authoritarianism, socialism will fail" and talked about how the problem with democracy is it leads to people making the wrong choices.

If I seem disagreeable to you, it's because I disagree with how your framing of things ignores the real world misery inflicted on thousands of people. You saying you never mentioned them is no excuse: Castro's treatment of the LGBT population is well known, as his belief that patriarchal, cis, heterosexual identity should be at the forefront of the socialist movement.

If I seem disagreeable, it's because I believe emancipation of LGBT should be at the heart of any socialist movement. I believe gay, lesbian, trans and non binary folk should be at the front of the movement, helping lead the change.

So when someone starts saying something along the lines of "Yeah, the cuban government were authoritarian, but you can understand why" that winds me up. Because it ignores the suffering of thousands of LGBT Cubans. Because it implies that the sacrifice of sexual and gender equality is an understandable sacrifice in the name of revolution. Because it implies the socialist struggle is more important than the struggle against the patriarchy, or against homophobia.

You may not think you said any of that. But I implore you to look at the words you wrote, and think about how that sort of terminology about a homophobic regime comes across to someone who is not straight, and who would have suffered under that regime.
What zero reading comprehension does to a motherfucker.
 
I think the wildest thing is that Castro actually apologized and took responsibility for how LGBT people were treated in Cuba. If many of the biggest politicians apologized for their direct attacks on gay rights in America, I haven't seen them. I haven't seen an apology from Bill Clinton for DOMA or Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Clinton was literally praising Nancy Fucking Reagan at her funeral in 2016 for her work on the AIDS crisis, and I shouldn't have to tell you

1. Why it's fucked up that Clinton did that, or
2. How little Nancy Reagan helped

If views on gay rights are tied to these economic systems, then I'd have to wonder why you'd want to go for capitalism when the biggest capitalist nation has gay people hanging on by a thread. Has gay people losing parental rights and a Supreme Court that's itching to take away their right to marriage, adoption, and hell, maybe even their right to work without being discriminated against.

Sounds like you're gonna have to take a big fat capitalist L on this one, MashedPotatoes.
 
Hmmm . . . -so what makes something Marxist for you, DIH? And are you referring to a book? a nation? a policy?
Marxism is very obviously an ideology.
I see DuskIsHere is more interested in creating antagonisms
Blatant misrepresentation. The last few pages of this thread are FULL of insults. All of them aimed at me and another poster, none dished out by me.
 
Last edited:
Blatant misrepresentation. The last few pages of this thread are FULL of insults. All of them aimed at me and another poster, none dished out by me.
That's what happens when you come in spouting stupid nonsense, get corrected and people give you the benefit of the doubt by requesting you explain yourself, and then doubling down on the idiocy.

Just like that landlord who came here and acted all offended when it turned out socialists don't like people like them lmao
 
No no, Terrell has a point. I mea, Terrell gave you easily the most in-depth reply, but the only thing you cared about is saying that you only care about responding to rudeness. Which, I might add, taking only that part of the post and ignoring everything else (including the post he did later in the thread) seems to confirm exactly that.
 
That's what happens when you come in spouting stupid nonsense, get corrected
'Corrected'? Must have missed that can you give me a post number and the correction?

No no, Terrell has a point.
No he doesn't. He conveniently looked past several blatantly insulting posts to call me the antagonist. It's there in black and white.

I don't have to ignore anything. Almost 100m people are dead behind this extremist ideology, 40m died in just four years. People have fled from it, if they were fast enough that is, for over 150 years. Ask an Albanian, Pole, or really most Eastern Europeans what they think of marxism, what it did to their country, how it impacts their country to the present day.

'Corrected'? My opinion is the defacto one around the world. It's not controversial.
 
'Corrected'? Must have missed that can you give me a post number and the correction?


No he doesn't. He conveniently looked past several blatantly insulting posts to call me the antagonist. It's there in black and white.

I don't have to ignore anything. Almost 100m people are dead behind this extremist ideology, 40m died in just four years. People have fled from it, if they were fast enough that is, for over 150 years. Ask an Albanian, Pole, or really most Eastern Europeans what they think of marxism, what it did to their country, how it impacts their country to the present day.

'Corrected'? My opinion is the defacto one around the world. It's not controversial.
Dawg, being wrong doesn't become more acceptable just because what you're wrong about is something a lot of people are wrong about.

Also, of course Terrell doesn't care about us insulting you, because Terrell probably also doesn't think very highly of you. He doesn't have to call us out in order to call you out for not wanting to engage with anyone who isn't looking to start shit.

And I'd be careful bringing up the death counts of socialism, this approach is going to be a lot less effective for your case than you might realize, ahaha
 
I don't have to ignore anything. Almost 100m people are dead behind this extremist ideology, 40m died in just four years. People have fled from it, if they were fast enough that is, for over 150 years. Ask an Albanian, Pole, or really most Eastern Europeans what they think of marxism, what it did to their country, how it impacts their country to the present day.
These numbers are from the Black Book of Communism, which is literally nazi shit. Like hardcore nazi propaganda. The Soviets who died during WW2 are counted. The nazis who died in WW2 are counted as victims. Please don't post nazi propaganda

Also, I asked you before, but please define Marxism. Give us the actual definition you're working with so we understand each other better
 
I see DuskIsHere is more interested in creating antagonisms, considering they’ve only responded to people who said mean things to them.

So I’ll ask again, since I wasn’t worth the reply… how is South Korea a positive example of a free market when chaebols, who exist due to heavily regulated market activity and choke out competition in the region, are a presence?
Because the free market in SK isn't just the chaebols, not by a long, long shot.
Never mind how the state basically works in service to them
As I've said in my first post, there are many issues with the free market. No one is suggesting it has been perfected. Political power is one of the biggest issues with it.
Additionally, I will agree with others, you saying you only see prosperity in SK
Didn't say that.

Dawg, being wrong doesn't become more acceptable just because what you're wrong about is something a lot of people are wrong about.

Also, of course Terrell doesn't care about us insulting you, because Terrell probably also doesn't think very highly of you.
Such an extremist mentality. Moderate individuals understand the rules don't change depending on who they apply to.
He doesn't have to call us out in order to call you out for not wanting to engage with anyone who isn't looking to start shit.
That's not what he 'called me out' for, he said I was being 'antagonising'. No. I'm very calm. Because my position is not a difficult one to defend at all. Extremism bad.
And I'd be careful bringing up the death counts of socialism, this approach is going to be a lot less effective for your case than you might realize, ahaha
Nope, nearly 100m dead is very, very bad. And that's not even including events like the pogroms and gulags.


All these people supposedly died from communism but famously nobody has died from capitalism
This kids is what we call whataboutism.
 
Because the free market in SK isn't just the chaebols, not by a long, long shot.

As I've said in my first post, there are many issues with the free market. No one is suggesting it has been perfected. Political power is one of the biggest issues with it.

Didn't say that.


Such an extremist mentality. Moderate individuals understand the rules don't change depending on who they apply to.

That's not what he 'called me out' for, he said I was being 'antagonising'. No. I'm very calm. Because my position is not a difficult one to defend at all. Extremism bad.

Nope, nearly 100m dead is very, very bad. And that's not even including events like the pogroms and gulags.

'Extremist mentality' The extremist mentality of "I don't care that a person who I don't like gets insulted"

Also he didn't say you were being antagonising, don't put that in quotes, he said you were only interested in antagonism. Which you are, you spend more time talking about people being mean to you than anything else.
 
Because the free market in SK isn't just the chaebols, not by a long, long shot.

As I've said in my first post, there are many issues with the free market. No one is suggesting it has been perfected. Political power is one of the biggest issues with it.

Didn't say that.


Such an extremist mentality. Moderate individuals understand the rules don't change depending on who they apply to.

That's not what he 'called me out' for, he said I was being 'antagonising'. No. I'm very calm. Because my position is not a difficult one to defend at all. Extremism bad.

Nope, nearly 100m dead is very, very bad. And that's not even including events like the pogroms and gulags.
Again, please stop repeating nazi propaganda
 
What's with these chuds coming in from time to time lol just go away, we don't wanna debate you and your idiotic views, go jerk off to some PragerU videos or whatever.
 
As someone who's been editing Wikipedia since she was 17 years old

Citing a Wikipedia article is a fucking laugh. Out of curiosity, Dusk, how much have you read into the sources used for this page?
 
lmfao jesus its official, the term 'nazi' has lost all fucking meaning. You realise the nazis were BEFORE the marxists, right?
Is wikipedia NAZI PROPAGANDA now? They talk about figures as high as 140 million...

Yes, there is in fact a lot of nazi propaganda in the link you posted. Wikipedia is a free platform that literally anyone can edit. The black book of communism is factually nazi propaganda. Who do you think hated the communists the most? The nazis. The nazis literally existed to exterminate socialists and communists first and foremost. You're familiar with the "First they came " poem right? Tell me what group appears in the very first stanza.
 
What's with these chuds coming in from time to time lol just go away, we don't wanna debate you and your idiotic views, go jerk off to some PragerU videos or whatever.
Thank you for illustrating the problem with extremism. If you're not with me, you must be my nemesis. You think the vast majority of the rest of the world is into PragerU? The heads behind PragerU would call me a libtard, because that's all extremists are able to do.

As someone who's been editing Wikipedia since she was 17 years old

Citing a Wikipedia article is a fucking laugh. Out of curiosity, Dusk, how much have you read into the sources used for this page?
People still poopooing WP as a source? Is it 2010 all over again? Such a meme. Wikipedia is a fine source, heavily moderated, and I don't see any facts there that differ greatly what I already know.

Is it gopro footage of the pogroms you're looking for? Maybe they didn't happen if I can't supply that to you, eh?

Who do you think hated the communists the most? The nazis.
Most marxist atrocities came AFTER the nazis lad, please learn about the linearity of time and where historical events lie on it...
 
Marxist atrocities came AFTER the nazis lad, please learn about the linearity of time and where historical events lie on it...
For someone who claims to know history so well, you sure don't know which were the first group the Nazis targeted
 
Thank you for illustrating the problem with extremism. If you're not with me, you must be my nemesis. You think the vast majority of the rest of the world is into PragerU? The heads behind PragerU would call me a libtard, because that's all extremists are able to do.


People still poopooing WP as a source? Is it 2010 all over again? Such a meme. Wikipedia is a fine source, heavily moderated, and I don't see any facts there that differ greatly what I already know.

Is it gopro footage of the pogroms you're looking for? Maybe they didn't happen if I can't supply that to you, eh?


Most marxist atrocities came AFTER the nazis lad, please learn about the linearity of time and where historical events lie on it...
What are you talking about 'after the nazis'

I'm sorry, do you think all the nazis disappeared or became irrelevant after WW2?
 
I would kindly ask you @DuskIsHere what exactly your goal is here? You clearly are not going to change anyone's minds, and your presence in this thread is not welcome. I think maybe you should disengage and step away from this thread.
 
Thank you for illustrating the problem with extremism. If you're not with me, you must be my nemesis. You think the vast majority of the rest of the world is into PragerU? The heads behind PragerU would call me a libtard, because that's all extremists are able to do.


People still poopooing WP as a source? Is it 2010 all over again? Such a meme. Wikipedia is a fine source, heavily moderated, and I don't see any facts there that differ greatly what I already know.

Is it gopro footage of the pogroms you're looking for? Maybe they didn't happen if I can't supply that to you, eh?


Most marxist atrocities came AFTER the nazis lad, please learn about the linearity of time and where historical events lie on it...

Dawg, I've been editing Wikipedia for 20 years. Do you know how much of a problem it is for sources to be misattributed? For low-quality sources to be used and not scrutinized? For editors to form cabals in certain topic spaces that make it difficult for people to change content in the article that they may find inaccurate?

Wikipedia is incredibly cliquey, and it's incredibly hard to penetrate certain spaces due to that fact. I have had to do SO much work to fix problems like this over the years. I'm not speaking as some teacher who's like "oh you can't cite Wikipedia, cite a REAL source", I'm saying this as someone with experience on how Wikipedia works

PLEASE

Stop being wrong about everything you say in this thread. Like do you ever get tired of it? Confidence in what you think is not a substitute for knowledge!
 
I would kindly ask you @DuskIsHere what exactly your goal is here?
I joined a forum, saw a bumped thread, gave my opinion, was jumped on and insulted. That's about it.
You clearly are not going to change anyone's minds
I would call that textbook extremism. If you can't present evidence and have someone reconsider their perspective, if they just handwave it away, they clearly are an extremist.
and your presence in this thread is not welcome.
Same ideology that led most of the pogroms, I understand. Very tolerant, marxism.

Bye bye very tolerant people :(
 
I joined a forum, saw a bumped thread, gave my opinion, was jumped on and insulted. That's about it.

I would call that textbook extremism. If you can't present evidence and have someone reconsider their perspective, if they just handwave it away, they clearly are an extremist.

Same ideology that led most of the pogroms, I understand. Very tolerant, marxism.

Bye bye very tolerant people :(
Man who's always aggressively wrong about the things he says: "Why aren't you tolerant of my ideas :((("
 


Back
Top Bottom