Lurker > averagejoel

Godnorgosh posted...

We live in a globally capitalist economy, yet for some reason folks wonder why any particular society that attempts to resist that preexisting and predominant force fails.

people seem to forget that:
1. there was a nazi disinformation campaign which peddled lies about socialists, and most of what they learned in school and see on the news is ultimately based on this, partly because...
2. operation paperclip happened
3. the major imperialist powers (the US, Britain, France) did everything in their power to prevent socialism from taking root
---

peanut butter and dick

interesting that you completely ignored everything I said on the subject while mindlessly accepting everything anyone says against Marxism.

I've literally addressed every single one of the points in this topic before
---

peanut butter and dick

powerful and glossy?
---

peanut butter and dick

I'm Imagining someone in the 80s asking this same question about East and West Germany and it's even funnier
---

peanut butter and dick

Axiom posted...

https://twitter.com/govmikehuckabee/status/842843634382897154?lang=en

This is really all that needs to be said regarding conservative humor

my name's Mike Huckabee and I'm here to say
I know you've had enough of me but I'm not going away
---

peanut butter and dick

I will now take further questions
---

peanut butter and dick

Q: Without money, what will motivate us?
A: Research has shown that money is not the best motivator. In fact, it's not even a particularly good one - people are primarily motivated by having a purpose. The betterment of humanity, especially when it's tied to our own personal survival, seems like a pretty good purpose to me.

Watch this video for more information:


Q: Isnt socialism/communism against human nature?
A: Human nature is a vague concept. Socialism is about what is real and can be measured. Looking back at human history, there is evidence that we achieve more when we work together. Human civilization began with cooperation, not by the strong bullying the weak. Some built. Some farmed. Some focused on inventing things which improved life immensely for the others. Point being: when everyone contributes, everyone gains. The problems started when people decided they could exercise control over others by individually owning means of production and calling it private property. This caused us to divide ourselves into social classes, begin fearing people who looked different, and eventually lead to us enslaving one another.

Q: Communism has killed millions of people. You cant just say that wasn't real communism - isn't that just the No True Scotsman fallacy?
A: No - the No True Scotsman fallacy is only applicable in the absence of a concrete definition of what constitutes a "Scotsman". The distinction between State Socialism and Communism is very important.

Q:But still, communism has killed millions of people, hasn't it?
A: The American and French revolutions, which ushered in the age of capitalism, were not bloodless, nor were they looked upon kindly by the feudal kings of Europe. Communists today are demonized just like capitalists were until the 1700s when their economic system eventually replaced feudalism. The same way feudalism replaced slave economies. In many ways, history is a story of old economic orders trying to prevent the rise of new ones.

The voices of anti-communists are amplified by the fact capitalists own all the media and write all the history books here. How do you suppose a Cuban history book would remember the American or French revolutions? How do you think their media talks about the wealth and luxury enjoyed by so few in the US and Europe while millions suffer everywhere else under capitalism? They would tell you it was capitalism, not communism, that has killed millions.

Q: Were Hitler and the Nazis socialist?
A: Absolutely not. Despite calling his party the "German National Socialist Workers' Party", Hitler privatized banks, busted unions, and steered the country towards a far-right nationalism which encouraged workers to make even greater sacrifices for the capitalists as long as they were the same race.

People often forget that the first line in that Martin Niemller poem about the holocaust is "First they came for the socialists" - Hitler feared socialists so much that he imprisoned and killed them before going after anyone else.

Q: So... socialists aren't fascist?
A: Definitely not. Lenin once said Fascism is capitalism in decay - once an economic crisis caused by capitalism gets bad enough, fascist strongmen like Hitler or Mussolini arise to restore order and keep the capitalists in power. Socialists do the opposite; fighting to dethrone the capitalists and the fascists who defend them. That's why "they came for the socialists" first.
---

peanut butter and dick

1. Economic Systems and Concepts

Means of Production: anything used at a workplace. this includes tools, buildings, land, raw materials, etc.

Capitalism: an economic system in which capitalists own the means of production and pay workers a fraction of the value of their labour, in the form of a wage.

Socialism: an economic system in which the workers own the means of production. it is a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism.

Communism: the end goal of socialism. A system in which all citizens collectively own the means of production. there is no class, no state, and society operates on the basic principle of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Social Class: a person's relationship to the means of production under capitalism

---

2. Social Classes

Proletariat (aka Workers, Working Class): this social class is composed of everyone who, in order to survive, must sell their labour and receive a wage.

Bourgeoisie (aka Capitalists): the social class which controls the means of production under capitalism and buys the labour of workers for less than what it is worth.
Examples: CEOs, shareholders, and bankers are part of this class.

Petite Bourgeoisie (aka the Middle Class): this social class is composed of people who own small businesses or perform administrative duties for large ones. There are some grey areas here; since they typically employ other workers, but also work themselves.
Examples: Private practicing doctors, the self-employed, small business owners

Lumpenproletariat: this social class consists of people who are long-term unemployed or only able to sustain themselves through criminal activity.

---

3. Frequently Asked Questions

Q: can't anyone get rich if they work hard enough?
A: Capitalism is like a giant casino. For every winner, there are millions of losers, and work (hard, easy, or non-existent) has very little to do with it. Take, for example, Sam Walton, Wal-Mart founder. He "worked hard" and "got rich." Then he died, and his three kids are each worth over 12 billion dollars. How hard did they work climbing out of their mother's birth canal? How hard has anyone in the Walton family worked to collect billions of dollars while the people who actually do the physical labour that made them that money survive on minimum wage (or worse yet; sweatshop wage)?

Q: Shouldnt we have the freedom to get as rich as we want?
A: Where do you suppose that money is going to come from? You can't create wealth out of thin air. The wealth produced by society as a whole is finite - one more dollar in your pocket means one less dollar in someone else's. Behind every rich person stands millions of poor people; losers in the capitalist casino. Saying yes to this question puts one in the same ethical position as the old Confederate slave-owners who thought they should have the "freedom" to buy as many slaves as they wanted to. Are you willing to fight, kill, and even give up your own life for that "freedom"?

Q: Doesnt socialism just mean more government?
A: That depends on which socialist you ask. Some socialists (Marxists, state socialists) believe a worker's state is the only way the working class can defend itself from capitalists until global communism is achieved. Other socialists (Anarchists or libertarian leftists) believe states are dangerous and the only way to end government corruption is to abolish governments ASAP. These groups disagree on how to transition into a stateless society, but are united in their desire to overthrow capitalism.
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

In the context of this discussion, there's no relevant difference.

nazism and communism are not the same thing at all, in any context.
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

Proudclad is? Can't say I blame you, I usually don't agree with him on anything. But whether or not marxism/communism is worth defending? C'mon. Its literally no different than defending Naziism. I mean there are some things that are so obvious that even the worst poster in the world would be on the correct side of that debate.

it's very different from defending nazism. you're being disingenuous.

nicklebro posted...

Deflecting from what?

the earlier statement. he said "Imagine thinking siding with literal Proudclad is a good thing."

instead of addressing this in your initial response, you deflected. however, you did respond to it in your next post, so I will now retract that statement, saying instead that your response is very bad.
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

BLAKUboy posted...

Imagine thinking siding with literal Proudclad is a good thing.

Imagine thinking defending Marxism and Communism is a good thing.

Lol because that's literally what happened, averagejoel is a declared Marxist.

why are you deflecting
---

peanut butter and dick

BLAKUboy posted...

Imagine thinking siding with literal Proudclad is a good thing.

I'm beginning to think that nicklebro might be an alt - there aren't many people I've seen on this board who use the term "spank" to refer to an argument that they think the other person lost
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

and dude FLUFFYGERM , we really spanked those fools huh? Usually in those kinds of debates one person will kinda drag down the argument and do more harm than good, but with Romes, you, and I all tag teaming those two clowns we actually all came together and smashed them. Like I feel that any one of us could have handled both of them on our own, so all three of us really wasn't fair. And while I actually get averagejoel, he's just an ignorant marxist who has been caught up in a very attractive ideology without actually taking into account what's happened in the past (and deluding himself with the no true scotsman fallacy) I can't believe how disappointed I was in COVxy. I mean that guy is at least of above average intelligence tho he's not as smart as he makes himself out to be and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is. But man how disappointing his abortion of argument turned out to be huh? And how desperate he was hold onto it till the bitter and refuse to admit he made a mistake? It was quite sad tbh.

hoo boy where to even begin with this
---

peanut butter and dick

please don't hail Justin Trudeau as though he's some shining beacon of progressive policy

he takes a selfie with a member of a marginalized group, big whoop
---

peanut butter and dick

or maybe in-person interactions are very different from online interactions
---

peanut butter and dick

GreatEvilEmpire posted...

ShinigamiSoul posted...

Honestly, Admiral doesn't seem like a "good" person to me. Negative, intellectually dishonest, provocative, childish, oblivious...to name a few things.

The users here who like him likely share these same characteristics.

Fun fact: If success is defined by our ability to maximize our potential, our total yearly earnings, our accomplishments, our ambitions, our sexual interactions with the opposite sex and our ability to get along with people of the same sex, then the people who align with Admiral would be considered some of the most successful CEmen on here.

if they fit that definition of success, then it's a very bad one
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

why would you ignore something as you write it? that seems counter-productive

Remember what I said about ignoring things that were substanceless?

why would you ignore something as you write it? that seems counter-productive
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

I have posted evidence. you've just ignored it and spouted misinformation

Remember what I said about ignoring things that were substanceless?

why would you ignore something as you write it? that seems counter-productive
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

You don't even have to post sources, but you have to at least post an actual argument. But it appears that you're conflating "listen to and not ignore" with "accept as objective fact" which that I cannot guarantee. But all I can promise is this, if you say something incorrect, I will not do as you have done and just declare you to be wrong. I will explain why you are wrong - as I have done multiple times already- and will even provide a source if necessary.

But make no mistake, I don't care if you stop or ignore me or anything like that. Your threats are completely empty to me since you are not a prominent poster and the ideology you're defending is detestable to me. Not to mention, you're literally trying to defend Communism in 2018 the year of our lord. If you're going to do something as outrageous as defend Communism, then you must provide some seriously astounding arguments. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence you may have heard. And claims don't get much more extraordinary than yours, yet you have not posted a single shred of evidence. So I do await this evidence and if you can indeed prove you claims, well hell, you'll change the world! But something in me doubts that will happen.

I have posted evidence. you've just ignored it and spouted misinformation
---

peanut butter and dick

Eevee-Trainer posted...

Got anything I can put in the poll tagline for him? Can't say I know him at all.

"The Bleeding-Heart Liberal" would be a funny tagline
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

What that means is don't just say "This isn't right" or "This is objectively incorrect" without explaining why or producing some source that backs up your claim or literally anything other than just "You're wrong!"

I'm telling you now that every single time you make a substanceless statement like that, I'm ignoring you

I hate to break it to you, but I've provided 1 more source for this than you have

bringing further sources into this will turn it into me educating you, even more than it already is.

I'm willing to educate you on these topics - I have done so before - but first you must promise that you won't ignore the points, and that you will actually listen to what I say and engage with the ideas, rather than responding to something irrelevant.

one instance of this, and I will stop.
---

peanut butter and dick

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

I can

Sure you can.

I'm getting a real fishhook theory vibe from nicklebro here. very tempted to put another name on my Ignore List
---

peanut butter and dick

reposting this in case nicklebro didn't see it:

nicklebro posted...

You've never said that, but its what it appears you believe.

it is not what I believe.

what have I said that indicates differently?

The fact that its been attempted multiple times and failed miserably, and in the exact same manner, every single time is indeed a reason to believe its impossible to implement. It doesn't prove it, but it is a reason. And again there's the fact that it contradicts basic human nature.

I have already addressed both of these points.

I don't really care to see this kind of baseless denial from you anymore.

what baseless denial? the idea that socialist states might have turned out better if the US wasn't waging war on them?

If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything at all.

is this satire? you keep going in circles

Just as a generalization, people aren't going to work unless they are motivated to. Its why capitalism works, it gives people motivation to work and contribute to society.

it's been proven, numerous times, that money is not the best motivator - it's not even a particularly good one.

watch this video. you might learn something.

This does not exist in Marxism

again, objectively incorrect. do you actually know anything about Marxist theory, or did you learn everything from Jordan Peterson's misinterpretation of it?
---

peanut butter and dick

Vindris_SNH posted...

He's one of my favorites here, because people don't know how to handle his reasonable, logical posts, and when they disagree with him and get destroyed in an argument, they don't know what to do except call him a troll or personally attack him. Nice to have another right leaning poster to shut down liberal nonsense on these boards.

found the admiral alt
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

You've never said that, but its what it appears you believe.

it is not what I believe.

what have I said that indicates differently?

The fact that its been attempted multiple times and failed miserably, and in the exact same manner, every single time is indeed a reason to believe its impossible to implement. It doesn't prove it, but it is a reason. And again there's the fact that it contradicts basic human nature.

I have already addressed both of these points.

I don't really care to see this kind of baseless denial from you anymore.

what baseless denial? the idea that socialist states might have turned out better if the US wasn't waging war on them?

If you don't have anything of substance to say, then don't say anything at all.

is this satire? you keep going in circles

Just as a generalization, people aren't going to work unless they are motivated to. Its why capitalism works, it gives people motivation to work and contribute to society.

it's been proven, numerous times, that money is not the best motivator - it's not even a particularly good one.

watch this video. you might learn something.

This does not exist in Marxism

again, objectively incorrect. do you actually know anything about Marxist theory, or did you learn everything from Jordan Peterson's misinterpretation of it?
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

Seems more like it depends on whether you agree with their politics or not

I'm not sure where you got that idea - I've certainly never said that someone should be rich or poor based on whether or not I agree with them politically

nicklebro posted...

Wrong, you can't defend an ideology by claiming its never been successfully implemented if there's no reason to believe its possible to to successfully implement. And that's what you're trying to do.

then it's a good thing I wasn't defending the ideology here. I was merely correcting false information

there's also no reason to believe that it's impossible to implement, so this is a non-argument.

Every time someone attempts to create a communist utopia it fails miserable and you point to that failure as an excuse to not label it true communism.

this is a disingenuous analysis of the conditions in socialist states, and one which I have already addressed in this topic, as well as many, many, many times before on this board.

And while human nature in general isn't static, parts of it certainly are, and those parts contradict the very foundation of Marxism.

there we go. this could be the start of a legitimate critique of the ideology.

which specific aspects of human nature are static, and how do they contradict the foundation of Marxism?
---

peanut butter and dick

Romes187 posted...

averagejoel posted...

, but Marxism, Postmodernism, and Gender are not.

OK - thats a fair stance to take. But can you provide SOME sort of evidence as to what you believe he is saying about Marxism, Gender, and Postmodernism that is misinformed?

Or let's just take it one at a time....what is he saying about Gender that you feel is misinformed?

are you going to actually listen to what I say, or will you just ignore it and spout platitudes and empty talking points at me like nicklebro?
---

peanut butter and dick

Antifar posted...

85% of this review is over my head but I came across it on Twitter and it seems relevant: https://www.viewpointmag.com/2018/01/23/postmodernism-not-take-place-jordan-petersons-12-rules-life/

oh man that review is awesome

Peterson is left making statements that are not only mired in factual error, but espouse a comically reductive conception of how social life and history work. He takes a common misunderstanding at face value, proceeding to build a whole outlook on it.

this is a perfect summary of basically everything he stands for
---

peanut butter and dick

Romes187 posted...

I have a feeling averagejoel Antifar and COVxy will not watch any of the recommendations we put forth :(

much easier to cling to their preconceived notions maybe?

I've watched more than enough Jordan Peterson.

I'm sure he's knowledgeable about some things. maybe the bible is one of them, but Marxism, Postmodernism, and Gender are not.

also his voice is really annoying - I'd consider reading a transcription of a bible lecture, but I won't watch the video itself.
---

peanut butter and dick

Antifar posted...

COVxy posted...

Because he got into an spat with students about misgendering/labels. Literally the only reason CE thinks he's a genius.

Yeah, it's wild how The Logical Professor's claim to fame is just the same troll shit half of CE's right wingers do.

it's not too surprising given how often those right wingers claim I Am Logical And My Enemy Is Emotional
---

peanut butter and dick

Romes187 posted...

Have you ever thought that it has never been reached due to it being flawed?

it hasn't been reached because the US has been very diligent about funding counter-revolutionary groups, kidnapping and killing democratically elected socialist leaders, and installing fascist dictatorships in their stead.

If you have no idea how to implement it, how do you know it was implemented incorrectly? Because it hasn't worked yet?

I didn't say that I had no idea how to implement it. I made no claims about that one way or the other. this is an irrelevant point.
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

He is quite clearly an expert on all of those subjects and knows more about them than you ever will.

objectively incorrect

I never said it does. I said you being a Marxist are likely to look down on people who make money.

that depends entirely on how their money is made

All implementations of Marxism remain flawed and incomplete because it is fundamentally unstable and impossible to realize without altering human nature as we know it.

you can't denounce an ideology by attacking implementations of that ideology, especially when every single person who follows that ideology says it was flawed and incomplete.

If you want to have a legitimate argument about this, start by attacking Marx's writing. there's plenty there to criticize. quote something, and attack it.

also, human nature isn't static to begin with - it's constantly changing relative to our surroundings.
---

peanut butter and dick

Romes187 posted...

averagejoel posted...

denouncing flawed, incomplete implementations of Marxism that were heavily attacked by imperialist countries is not a denouncement of Marxist ideology.

There it is...incomplete implementations of Marxism.

Please tell us exactly how you, great and all knowing person, would implement it CORRECTLY

Because clearly you know how

what does this have to do with anything?

Communism, the final stage of Marxism, has never been reached. that is an objective fact.

I made no claims about how I would implement it. I never said I would be a good leader for a country.
---

peanut butter and dick

Anteaterking posted...

zH0mPfR posted...

You must not watch much YouTube or watch/listen to many podcasts.

I listen to podcasts. What podcasts should I have been listening to?

Chapo Trap House. specifically, the episode where they talk about Jordan Peterson
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

He's literally an expert on the things he talks about and knows more about them than you could ever dream.

he is pretty clearly ignorant on the subjects of marxism, postmodernism, and gender, and those are the things that he seems most lauded for talking about

And you're a Marxist, anyone making money is immediately wrong in your eyes lmao.

incorrect. Marxism does not denounce people making money. try harder.

Because Marxism always leads to suffering and death. Every time Marxism has reared its ugly head it has resulted in labor camps and and poverty and mass democide, as well as the eventual collapse of the country.

denouncing flawed, incomplete implementations of Marxism that were heavily attacked by imperialist countries is not a denouncement of Marxist ideology.
---

peanut butter and dick

MC_BatCommander posted...

averagejoel posted...

lol

why is anyone still paying attention to this dweeb

Why shouldn't they be?

because he became famous for talking about things he has no clue about, and continues to spout misinformation

because he's making way too much money as it is

nicklebro posted...

Its an endorsement for Peterson and a denouncement of Marxists. Which is common sense to anyone with common sense.

how is a denouncement of marxism "common sense"?
---

peanut butter and dick

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

lol

why is anyone still paying attention to this dweeb

Because he's a genius, and the only people who disagree are literally Marxists.

are you trying to frame that as though it's an endorsement of Peterson? because it isn't
---

peanut butter and dick

lol

why is anyone still paying attention to this dweeb
---

peanut butter and dick

thelovefist posted...

r4X0r posted...

averagejoel posted...

along with food, water, and a place to live, healthcare is one of the fundamental human rights

If people have an automatic "right" to food, water, a home, and health care... why the hell would anyone work? And who's going to pay for all those things in a society where people don't need to work?

In averagejoel's communist utopia this isn't an issue.

lol

fenderbender321 posted...

I don't see why it should be something we automatically provide to everyone. Just because they're alive, they deserve to have other people pay for their health care? That's an awfully selfish mentality to have. Earn your shit. Realize that your problems are not everyone else's problems too.

LOL
---

peanut butter and dick

along with food, water, and a place to live, healthcare is one of the fundamental human rights
---

peanut butter and dick

I hate that it tries to get viewers to sympathize with an abusive parent
---

peanut butter and dick

CE jumps to the teacher's defense in 3, 2, 1...
---

peanut butter and dick

ilovuu posted...

the best right wing news source is fox.

yeah. that's pretty bad.

no, WaPo is far better than Fox - to the point that they actually have some good stuff

also lol @ anyone who think CNN is leftist
---

peanut butter and dick

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Can we keep the things that are at least "left/right centered" bias? I'll gladly give up CNN for WaPo if Breitbart and FN are gone.

FN?
---

peanut butter and dick

no news source is perfect

but CNN, Huffington Post, NYT, and WaPo are nowhere near as bad as InfoWars and Breitbart. not even close. the former four have some stuff that's good and worth reading. InfoWars and Breitbart are even worse than Fox news
---

peanut butter and dick

Tmk posted...

Also this seems like a good time to bring this up: when browsing memes on imgur recently, I learned in some countries, slang for "throwing a tantrum" is "throwing a wobbly"

I highly recommend working it into your vocabularies.

Like, is gunplagirl saying angry extreme things about politics, a "meltdown" if you will? Or, OR, is she, throwing a wobbly? _q

people are reading things into gunplagirl's words that are blatantly not there
---

peanut butter and dick

GiftedACIII posted...

Just because the revolution was justified doesn't mean all the acts in it were justified. There were also lots of rapes committed during that time, would you also be fine with raping those heirs while you're at it? Wow, didn't know you and ZombiePelican would have something so similar.

I said the killing of the royal families during the French and Russian revolutions was justified. please don't make baseless extrapolations from that.
---

peanut butter and dick

PtlessAgmnts posted...

No, that would be you, trying to dance around her calling rape victims rapists and literally calling for genocide. So it appears you're also a genocide advocating sociopath.

lol ok think that if you want. but you're objectively incorrect
---

peanut butter and dick

PtlessAgmnts posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

averagejoel posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

@averagejoel
try to defend this https://imgur.com/a/giO9I
She likes talking in roundabout ways, much like the politicians she despises but she is pretty blatantly advocating killing legally innocent people like politicians and rich people because by her morals, they "aren't innocent", aka the same justification a lot of serial killers use for their targets.

my main qualm with that screenshot is that she conflates "rich people" with "bourgeoisie"

the means by which money is made is much more important than the actual amount of money. for instance, professional big-league athletes, though they make a lot of money, are still being exploited, and are therefore working class. on the flip side, landlords, because they own and make money from private property, are bourgeoisie regardless of how much money they actually make from that.

so her terminology is a bit off, but if she corrected that, I would have no problem with it

...So you're fine with murdering the "bourgeoisie" even the ones who inherited it too? And the fact that she seriously considered indepth how she would use a death note if she ever got ahold of one doesn't bother you any either?

Having fantasies of murder sprees is a part of being knowledgeable about social issues, don't you know?

you're being extremely disingenuous here
---

peanut butter and dick