You’re just spitting vibes, Doom. Imperialism and Liberalism are compatible. Communism makes the working class into the ruling class and doesn’t make a new one. When you talk of workers “right” you’re confusing communism and liberalism. Communism isn’t about workers rights as defined by Liberalism. Communism is about the interests of the working class driving the decisions of the state. Which is why every communist project ever has raised the poorest of the poor into food abundance, housing abundance, positive health outcomes, and positive education outcomes. These things are what the working class needs and sometimes the path there tramples on what liberals imagine are metaphysical “rights”.
Democracies create plutocracies
No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called “undemocratic” by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.
a country that calls itself fascist can still do socialism
This is probably the strongest evidence that you’re all vibes and no awareness.
a country that calls itself a democracy can still do authoritarianism
That’s why we think there’s no such thing as “authoritarianism” in a meaningful sense. All states are, by definition, authoritarian. Democracy is not an opposite of authority.
At this point, you might as well say “Liberalism is all the good things and none of the bad things and all the bad things are not liberalism because liberalism is all the good things”
Talking to you is like talking to a wall, you’ve decided what you think not what reality says. Liberalism didn’t exist in Rome. Communism absolutely has it’s own woes and your cheerleading of it just makes you look very silly. I guess the Aral Sea never existed.
Your brain is rotted by media. It’s very funny how many “communists” screech theory and then aren’t able to discuss theory.
And Democracy isn’t what produced the the plutocracy in Rome. I did not said plutocracies are only produced by liberalism. I said that democracies are not the cause of plutocracies unless you limit yourself to liberal democracies. There are plenty of examples of democracies that don’t produce plutocracies. And nearly every liberal democracy started under the conditions of plutocracy already. Again, it’s not like liberal democracies were primarily a grassroots movement by peasants.
But I just really can’t believe how far up your own ass you are to bring up Rome and blame it on democracy.
Roman plutocracy emerged because its systems were literally organized by wealth with wealthy people having more say in bodies like the Comitia Centuriata and with wealth requirements for holding office, especially for senators.
It wasn’t democracy that created plutocracy in Rome and you would know that if you weren’t clearly consuming the shallowest reinterpretations of history I’ve encountered since middle school.
Communism absolutely has it’s own woes and your cheerleading of it just makes you look very silly
I never said communism doesn’t have problems. I was contrasting it with Liberalism. For someone who wants to talk theory, you sure seem to have no concept of what that means.
Your brain is rotted by media
Wow. Just wow. The multi-trillion-dollar mass media hegemony of the last several centuries dominated by liberalism has somehow created a situation where my brain is rotted for understanding history but yours is high theory because you believe the shallowest myths of liberalism.
The amount you try to wedge words in to change what you’re saying is a joke. Every argument you make relies on equivocating so you can bend it.
Liberalism creates plutocracies.
Ok
I did not said plutocracies are only produced by liberalism.
Oh okay.
You’re a moron, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Playing chess with a pigeon. You have no clue what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what liberalism is. Get a job.
You try so hard to be insulting but you’re just pissing on yourself while you do it. I tried to talk to you before, you increasingly got pissy and rude so why would I bother?
Because you claim that I am the one who can’t discuss theory when I have provided so much more historical context and analysis of the conflict between values and power around the history and development of Liberalism while you have made broad and clearly inaccurate generalities, established that you think history has no bearing on theory, and stated a single position that liberalism’s foundation is abstract universal rights and that anyone who disagrees with that position is not only clearly uneducated but has a media-rotted brain and is incapable of discussing theory.
I mean, I see it. I’m sure others see it. You don’t seem to be able to see it
development of Liberalism while you have made broad and clearly inaccurate generalities
Never did that.
established that you think history has no bearing on theory
Literally did the opposite.
tated a single position that liberalism’s foundation is abstract universal rights
Nope I did not.
anyone who disagrees with that position is not only clearly uneducated but has a media-rotted brain and is incapable of discussing theory.
Nope.
Are you like actually retarded? I don’t ask this lightly. I went into your comment history and you do this to a lot of people and they express having the same experience I have. That you just wildly flop around claiming things, move goal posts, claim nonsense and it’s almost like you’re on drugs when you’re reading.
This entire thread has you doing laps disconnecting the historical context liberalism came from claiming it has this nefarious start of merchants basically lying. Your historical context is skewed and really just absolutely incorrect.
Merchants wanted the wealth they were hoarding to translate into power, but they couldn’t buy power because power was tied to land and land was tied to nobility which was entirely determined by the unitary sovereign which was entirely determined by heredity.
That’s skewed and wrong.
Merchants wanted their wealth to translate to power, so they developed a new political theory for where power should come from
Stupid perspective.
So they started to invent abstract concepts to disconnect power from reality so they could reassign power
Stupid
They invented the concept of abstract rights, and they put a right to private property into a list of things like the right to print whatever they wanted in newspapers that they owned and the right to buy and sell anything.
Stupid
Liberalism is the political philosophy of merchants and land owners that gives them political power on the basis of their effectiveness at accumulating wealth and makes the bare minimum concessions to the laboring masses required to get them to fight against the kings on behalf of the merchants.
Stupid
It is the political philosophy of settler colonialism, of privatization, of chattel slavery, of Thomas Jefferson’s breeding plantations, of Coca Cola hiring death squads, of the Opium Wars, of killing all the buffalo so that land could be taken from the Lakota, of getting people addicted to drugs in order to get them into debt.
Very fucking stupid, do you think Thomas Jefferson created liberalism?
Liberalism is the political movement that destroyed the social safety net that feudal societies maintained through nobilesse oblige and impoverished the masses everywhere until it forced the emergence of a labor movement and the creation of labor unions to give the masses a vehicle to fight the liberals, which the liberals crushed with military and paramilitary violence.
Completely ignorant.
It’s all stupid and ignorant because you’re completely failing to understand the environment these ideals were thought under, multiple people in this thread have pointed it out. Liberalism was not thought up by a cabal of merchants, it wasn’t created by the Illuminati with a goal, it wasn’t fashioned as a tool. It came about from people realizing the increasing failures of monarchies and realizing they were able to move away from the crown as a backbone of society and establish something else. It was literally the only educated folk at the time stumbling into the darkness and searching for something more. They did their best with the language and understanding they had to cobble together an argument for individual’s rights. Literally the easiest way to ever make anyone understand is to teach the origins of the word villain and then ask them how to argue against that concept in the face of a king or noble. Those first few steps will lead anyone towards basically liberalism, the concept of self-determination becomes obvious. Everything else follows.
The way you express yourself is this weird frankenstein view where you’re looking at the ultra rich liberals and claiming those are the core beliefs of liberalism. It was not because merchants had a goal, it is because society moved away from what it was before and people felt it.
Yes, I view all political philosophies through a historical concrete lens and not through an abstract idealist one.
You think this sounded smart, but it means fucking nothing. Political theories are abstract, they are ideals. When anyone tries to point out even in the slightest way that your view is crooked you respond like this:
Please read a book before posting this sort of embarrassingly ignorant shit
You’re a child, you’re an asshole and above all you’re a fucking idiot suffering from some hardcore Dunning-Kruger energy. You think you know, when others reply normally and push back you embrace your inner little bitch energy and just completely crumble. You do not discuss, you cry.
Then you say shit like this :
No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called “undemocratic” by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.
And expose exactly why you’re so dumb. Because you decided what you believe, not the actual truth. Communist movements have not successfully done that, they have always created a massive divide in wealth under the umbrella of equality. They are usually ruled by a wealthy privileged elite, really only Cuba you could make an argument hasn’t done that but they still have the same issue where citizens who have access to foreign currency exist far above those who do not.
You say shit like this:
And Democracy isn’t what produced the the plutocracy in Rome.
and then instantly contradict yourself.
Roman plutocracy emerged because its systems were literally organized by wealth with wealthy people having more say in bodies like the Comitia Centuriata and with wealth requirements for holding office, especially for senators.
So no you can’t discuss theory, you can’t even discuss. You cry, insult, bitch, complain, you’re nasty and immature and really just fucking stupid. You don’t understand history. You contradict yourself, you move goalposts, you equivocate what you say, you try all these mental gymnastics because like I said, you’ve decided what you think is true and not actual reality. You’re fucking dumb. Stop talking to me lmfao
You’re just spitting vibes, Doom. Imperialism and Liberalism are compatible. Communism makes the working class into the ruling class and doesn’t make a new one. When you talk of workers “right” you’re confusing communism and liberalism. Communism isn’t about workers rights as defined by Liberalism. Communism is about the interests of the working class driving the decisions of the state. Which is why every communist project ever has raised the poorest of the poor into food abundance, housing abundance, positive health outcomes, and positive education outcomes. These things are what the working class needs and sometimes the path there tramples on what liberals imagine are metaphysical “rights”.
No. Liberalism creates plutocracies. Your definition of democracy is limited to existing liberal democracies. Real democracy is when the people have the ability to influence the state, which is what communist movements have done successfully despite being called “undemocratic” by the Liberals. Mostly because Liberalism cannot abide a state deciding to nationalize its natural resources.
This is probably the strongest evidence that you’re all vibes and no awareness.
That’s why we think there’s no such thing as “authoritarianism” in a meaningful sense. All states are, by definition, authoritarian. Democracy is not an opposite of authority.
At this point, you might as well say “Liberalism is all the good things and none of the bad things and all the bad things are not liberalism because liberalism is all the good things”
Talking to you is like talking to a wall, you’ve decided what you think not what reality says. Liberalism didn’t exist in Rome. Communism absolutely has it’s own woes and your cheerleading of it just makes you look very silly. I guess the Aral Sea never existed.
Your brain is rotted by media. It’s very funny how many “communists” screech theory and then aren’t able to discuss theory.
And Democracy isn’t what produced the the plutocracy in Rome. I did not said plutocracies are only produced by liberalism. I said that democracies are not the cause of plutocracies unless you limit yourself to liberal democracies. There are plenty of examples of democracies that don’t produce plutocracies. And nearly every liberal democracy started under the conditions of plutocracy already. Again, it’s not like liberal democracies were primarily a grassroots movement by peasants.
But I just really can’t believe how far up your own ass you are to bring up Rome and blame it on democracy.
Roman plutocracy emerged because its systems were literally organized by wealth with wealthy people having more say in bodies like the Comitia Centuriata and with wealth requirements for holding office, especially for senators.
It wasn’t democracy that created plutocracy in Rome and you would know that if you weren’t clearly consuming the shallowest reinterpretations of history I’ve encountered since middle school.
I never said communism doesn’t have problems. I was contrasting it with Liberalism. For someone who wants to talk theory, you sure seem to have no concept of what that means.
Wow. Just wow. The multi-trillion-dollar mass media hegemony of the last several centuries dominated by liberalism has somehow created a situation where my brain is rotted for understanding history but yours is high theory because you believe the shallowest myths of liberalism.
You’re a clown, Doom.
The amount you try to wedge words in to change what you’re saying is a joke. Every argument you make relies on equivocating so you can bend it.
Ok
Oh okay.
You’re a moron, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Playing chess with a pigeon. You have no clue what you’re talking about, you literally don’t even know what liberalism is. Get a job.
Great example of discussing theory, Doom. Honestly. I cannot imagine operating with your level of sheer ignorance and your level of sheer arrogance.
You try so hard to be insulting but you’re just pissing on yourself while you do it. I tried to talk to you before, you increasingly got pissy and rude so why would I bother?
Because you claim that I am the one who can’t discuss theory when I have provided so much more historical context and analysis of the conflict between values and power around the history and development of Liberalism while you have made broad and clearly inaccurate generalities, established that you think history has no bearing on theory, and stated a single position that liberalism’s foundation is abstract universal rights and that anyone who disagrees with that position is not only clearly uneducated but has a media-rotted brain and is incapable of discussing theory.
I mean, I see it. I’m sure others see it. You don’t seem to be able to see it
Never did that.
Literally did the opposite.
Nope I did not.
Nope.
Are you like actually retarded? I don’t ask this lightly. I went into your comment history and you do this to a lot of people and they express having the same experience I have. That you just wildly flop around claiming things, move goal posts, claim nonsense and it’s almost like you’re on drugs when you’re reading.
This entire thread has you doing laps disconnecting the historical context liberalism came from claiming it has this nefarious start of merchants basically lying. Your historical context is skewed and really just absolutely incorrect.
That’s skewed and wrong.
Stupid perspective.
Stupid
Stupid
Stupid
Very fucking stupid, do you think Thomas Jefferson created liberalism?
Completely ignorant.
It’s all stupid and ignorant because you’re completely failing to understand the environment these ideals were thought under, multiple people in this thread have pointed it out. Liberalism was not thought up by a cabal of merchants, it wasn’t created by the Illuminati with a goal, it wasn’t fashioned as a tool. It came about from people realizing the increasing failures of monarchies and realizing they were able to move away from the crown as a backbone of society and establish something else. It was literally the only educated folk at the time stumbling into the darkness and searching for something more. They did their best with the language and understanding they had to cobble together an argument for individual’s rights. Literally the easiest way to ever make anyone understand is to teach the origins of the word villain and then ask them how to argue against that concept in the face of a king or noble. Those first few steps will lead anyone towards basically liberalism, the concept of self-determination becomes obvious. Everything else follows.
The way you express yourself is this weird frankenstein view where you’re looking at the ultra rich liberals and claiming those are the core beliefs of liberalism. It was not because merchants had a goal, it is because society moved away from what it was before and people felt it.
You think this sounded smart, but it means fucking nothing. Political theories are abstract, they are ideals. When anyone tries to point out even in the slightest way that your view is crooked you respond like this:
You’re a child, you’re an asshole and above all you’re a fucking idiot suffering from some hardcore Dunning-Kruger energy. You think you know, when others reply normally and push back you embrace your inner little bitch energy and just completely crumble. You do not discuss, you cry.
Then you say shit like this :
And expose exactly why you’re so dumb. Because you decided what you believe, not the actual truth. Communist movements have not successfully done that, they have always created a massive divide in wealth under the umbrella of equality. They are usually ruled by a wealthy privileged elite, really only Cuba you could make an argument hasn’t done that but they still have the same issue where citizens who have access to foreign currency exist far above those who do not.
You say shit like this:
and then instantly contradict yourself.
So no you can’t discuss theory, you can’t even discuss. You cry, insult, bitch, complain, you’re nasty and immature and really just fucking stupid. You don’t understand history. You contradict yourself, you move goalposts, you equivocate what you say, you try all these mental gymnastics because like I said, you’ve decided what you think is true and not actual reality. You’re fucking dumb. Stop talking to me lmfao