Current Events > "Russia interfered in the election!!!"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Those got dayum libruls are tryin to take mah fast food and scratch-offs.
---

Darkman124 posted...

we can talk about GE if you want though

okay, I'm curious - you've said you think that the current stock climate is due to the trump tax cuts. so why isn't that going to be the same for GE? you said you think their restructuring will be good for them, but maybe they'll see some growth because of the tax cuts and then once that ends it'll just go down again.

are you interested at all in buying Fitbit stock?
---

Darkman124 posted...

to be clear tagged people: fluffygerm accuses you of favoring soviet-era style communism, and not the mixed market economy system used in nations like norway or sweden

*sigh*

Social Democracy is not a mixed market economy. it's still capitalist. it's still unsustainable. it only currently functions in scandinavian countries because they still benefit from european imperialism.

socialism and capitalism do not mix.

the soviet union was not communist, and whether or not they were even socialist is a major point of contention between different branches of socialist thought

Darkman124 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

you didnt read carefully enough. im accusing their rhetoric of being the same. not that they favor the soviet outcome. of course theyre going to deny that they want the soviet collapse here.

have your discussion with them

we can talk about GE if you want though

I've tried to talk to fluffygerm before. as per usual, it ended up with me trying to educate him and him ignoring me, so I put him on my Ignore list. I'm not going to engage with him any further.
---

averagejoel posted...

*sigh*

Social Democracy is not a mixed market economy. it's still capitalist. it's still unsustainable. it only currently functions in scandinavian countries because they still benefit from european imperialism.

socialism and capitalism do not mix.

the soviet union was not communist, and whether or not they were even socialist is a major point of contention between different branches of socialist thought

lmfao i'd spank him again but he adds virtually anyone to his ignore list if they challenge his views more than once or twice. go ahead and try and see.
---

averagejoel posted...

I've tried to talk to fluffygerm before. as per usual, it ended up with me trying to educate him and him ignoring me, so I put him on my Ignore list. I'm not going to engage with him any further.

no, you got absolutely demolished by multiple people who you proceeded to block. which is actually doing you a disservice since now people can freely crush your beliefs without you having a chance to respond, making you look weak
---

darkman ask him to tell you about how profit is exploitation/theft lol
---

averagejoel posted...

the soviet union was not communist,

Ugh I hate when people try to make this argument.
---

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

the soviet union was not communist,

Ugh I hate when people try to make this argument.

he also tried to argue that romania wasn't at all a socialist / communist country in any way. he blocked me after that spanking in particular lol.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

the soviet union was not communist,

Ugh I hate when people try to make this argument.

he also tried to argue that romania wasn't at all a socialist / communist country in any way. he blocked me after that spanking in particular lol.

Mal_Fet will also argue that the Nazis were extreme leftists lol.
---

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

the soviet union was not communist,

Ugh I hate when people try to make this argument.

he also tried to argue that romania wasn't at all a socialist / communist country in any way. he blocked me after that spanking in particular lol.

Mal_Fet will also argue that the Nazis were extreme leftists lol.

eh there is a loose sense in which they were. but ultimately that distinction is pointless since you can find that type of overlap between any two ideologies if you try hard enough.
---

The tension is about oil and territory, not economic policy. Get a clue TC.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

the soviet union was not communist,

Ugh I hate when people try to make this argument.

he also tried to argue that romania wasn't at all a socialist / communist country in any way. he blocked me after that spanking in particular lol.

Mal_Fet will also argue that the Nazis were extreme leftists lol.

eh there is a loose sense in which they were. but ultimately that distinction is pointless since you can find that type of overlap between any two ideologies if you try hard enough.

Naw man they were far right fascists that arose as a counter to marxism and bolshevism. There were communists in Germany that were vying for power too but the far right won that battle.
---

Current Russia is the enemy, but the NYTimes and the elite absolutely gushed about the Soviet era. An NYT writer even won a Pulitzer for writing a Stalin puff piece in the 1940's.
---

communism is stateless. the soviet union had a state. therefore, the soviet union was not communist.
---

tommybel89 posted...

Current Russia is the enemy, but the NYTimes and the elite absolutely gushed about the Soviet era. An NYT writer even won a Pulitzer for writing a Stalin puff piece in the 1940's.

Pretty sure that was part of our own propaganda as we were joining forces with him to take on Hitler. Hence the whole "uncle Joe" campaign. Idk if you realized this, but Stalin was a very important Ally right at that time period. So you're being a bit disingenuous when you act as if it came out of nowhere solely from his personal appreciation for Stalin.
---

averagejoel posted...

communism is stateless. the soviet union had a state. therefore, the soviet union was not communist.

The Soviet Union is what you get when you try to install communism, just like Maoist China and the DPRK and Cuba and all the rest. In reality, communism is a pipe dream that is actually impossible to achieve. That's why it's annoying when people like you make that silly argument, you're quite obviously leaving facts out to avoid having to admit that communism has been a mass murderous nightmarish disaster every single place it's been attempted. Literally every single instance has turned into one of the worst places on Earth.

How many more tens of millions of people need to die before you're satisfied that we should forget about Marxism and communism?
---

shockthemonkey posted...

nicklebro posted...

averagejoel posted...

the soviet union was not communist,

Ugh I hate when people try to make this argument.

Pretty fair to argue that the workers didnt own the means of production when the state owned both the means of production and the workers

Not for lack of trying. They murdered all of the successful farmers (the kulaks) because they wanted to liberate the farming industry to the workers. But when you kill all of your successful farmers, you're not going to grow as much food. Hence 6 million Ukrainians starving to death in a famine that is directly attributable to communist doctrine.

Read the gulag archipelago and you'll learn how these seemingly compassionate intentions resulted in the death and suffering of millions.
---

shockthemonkey posted...

Yeah there is no doubt that communist revolutions fuck up people who are necessary to survival. Im just explaining why its easy to see that Soviet Russia was not a true form of communism but rather a bastardized authoritarian state.

Sure, technically that's true, but Soviet Russia is the result of communism and Marxist ideology. There's never once been an example of the text book definition of Communism, because it's a myth. But every single time you attempt it, you end up with strikingly similar hells, like Stalinism and maoism.

Communism has been completely and emphatically debunked and anyone who even entertains the thought of giving it another go is unbelievably ignorant.
---

nicklebro posted...

There's never once been an example of the text book definition of Communism, because it's a myth. But every single time you attempt it, you end up with strikingly similar hells, like Stalinism and maoism.

Communism has been completely and emphatically debunked and anyone who even entertains the thought of giving it another go is unbelievably ignorant.

This reasoning is extremely flawed though. Always has been always will be. Yes, this is what they tell grade school kids in history class, but it's not a well reasoned argument.
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

There's never once been an example of the text book definition of Communism, because it's a myth. But every single time you attempt it, you end up with strikingly similar hells, like Stalinism and maoism.

Communism has been completely and emphatically debunked and anyone who even entertains the thought of giving it another go is unbelievably ignorant.

This reasoning is extremely flawed though. Always has been always will be. Yes, this is what they tell grade school kids in history class, but it's not a well reasoned argument.

Idk what grade school you went to but I never heard this anywhere, I learned it on my own. And it's a perfectly reasoned argument since every single word of it is undeniably factual.

Again, how many more tens of millions of innocent deaths will it take to convince you?
---

Communism works in smaller Amish or tribal communities where everyone knows everyone and can distribute goods and services accordingly. There's no way it could be applied to a country without some sort of market or state informing the countless decisions affected by supply and demand.

Rexdragon125 posted...

Communism works in smaller Amish or tribal communities where everyone knows everyone and can distribute goods and services accordingly. There's no way it could be applied to a country without some sort of market or state informing the countless decisions affected by supply and demand.

Lol the Amish aren't communists.
---

nicklebro posted...

Idk what grade school you went to but I never heard this anywhere

Really? Because the phrase that got pounded into me throughout my schooling was:
"Communism works in theory, not practice!"

nicklebro posted...

And it's a perfectly reasoned argument

"Imperfect instantiation of X failed, therefore X is impossible," doesn't follow.
---

nicklebro posted...

There's never once been an example of the text book definition of Communism, because it's a myth. But every single time you attempt it, you end up with strikingly similar hells, like Stalinism and maoism.

do you think they might have worked out better if the US wasn't constantly funding counterrevolutionary groups, killing and kidnapping democratically elected leaders, and installing fascist dictatorships in their stead to further their own corporate interest?
---

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.
---

i hope youre satisfied darkman
---

nicklebro posted...

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.

If I build a tower with an unstable foundation and it collapses, and I do it again, but with that same unstable foundation, and it collapses again, is it fair to say that building a tower is a myth? Nobody could do it?
---

nicklebro you are wasting your time with COVxy. He is dishonest. Recently there was a topic where we were discussing how communists would compel people to work for no profit. Particularly the dirty and dangerous and undesirable jobs.

His view was that people will gladly work 40+ hours a week under a communist system, because they'd be bored and depressed otherwise. Godnorgosh's view was that people would work out of fear of being shamed by the community.

None of them wanted to admit that you would need to use force to compel people to work. They just came up with bullshit explanations because they're more committed to hard socialism/communism than reality.
---

COVxy posted...

Really? Because the phrase that got pounded into me throughout my schooling was:
"Communism works in theory, not practice!"

That's a very nice way of saying it resulted in the deaths of 100 million innocent people.

COVxy posted...

"Imperfect instantiation of X failed, therefore X is impossible," doesn't follow.

Funny how I never actually used the word impossible. But you felt the need to include it. Hmm. Its almost as if you were trying to judge communism by it's theory rather than it's practice. And technically you can't claim it's impossible for me to live forever. But does that help any kind of rational discussion whatsoever?

But I'm not really interested in humoring such a stupid argument. The results of attempting communism like maoism and Stalinism all fail in strikingly similar fashions, anyone who needs further proof that we should abandon the ideology is a moron.

averagejoel posted...

do you think they might have worked out better if the US wasn't constantly funding counterrevolutionary groups, killing and kidnapping democratically elected leaders, and installing fascist dictatorships in their stead to further their own corporate interest?

No. The USSR failed on it's own. And it failed in nearly the exact same way that Maoist China did and the DPRK. No matter what you try to blame America for, no one made them throw millions of innocent people into their gulag system to run their slave labor machine.

And communists don't elect people democratically, so idk what you're even talking about.
---

nicklebro posted...

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.

how many times has it been attempted without at least one major world superpower trying to prevent it?
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.

If I build a tower with an unstable foundation and it collapses, and I do it again, but with that same unstable foundation, and it collapses again, is it fair to say that building a tower is a myth? Nobody could do it?

They say that reasoning by analogy rather than first principles means you have no real argument.

Communism is the unstable foundation. Capitalism is demonstrably the stable one.
---

nicklebro posted...

No. The USSR failed on it's own.

lol this is objectively false

And communists don't elect people democratically, so idk what you're even talking about.

this is also objectively false
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro you are wasting your time with COVxy. He is dishonest. Recently there was a topic where we were discussing how communists would compel people to work for no profit. Particularly the dirty and dangerous and undesirable jobs.

His view was that people will gladly work 40+ hours a week under a communist system, because they'd be bored and depressed otherwise. Godnorgosh's view was that people would work out of fear of being shamed by the community.

Idk why you feel you have to misrepresent my argument deliberately.

Like, I've already directly addressed this misrepresentation of what I said. But you stick with this version because you can pretend like I'm a ridiculous person.
---

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.

how many times has it been attempted without at least one major world superpower trying to prevent it?

Iran was already unstable and on a downward spiral before the US and the British got involved. Romania collapsed on its own. The Soviet Union had plenty of freedom to attempt socialism and they learned the hard way that it does not work. The Scandinavian countries know that they couldn't provide the safety nets they have if they were not heavily invested into the profit-bringing capitalistic engine of the world.

An advanced and stable society cannot exist without profit, without first achieving immortality and technology that is indistinguishable from magic.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They say that reasoning by analogy rather than first principles means you have no real argument.

Who, exactly?

Fucking stupid saying, if you ask me. I can't think of a single scientific talk that didn't use analogical reasoning to reframe complex questions so that they can be digested more clearly.
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro you are wasting your time with COVxy. He is dishonest. Recently there was a topic where we were discussing how communists would compel people to work for no profit. Particularly the dirty and dangerous and undesirable jobs.

His view was that people will gladly work 40+ hours a week under a communist system, because they'd be bored and depressed otherwise. Godnorgosh's view was that people would work out of fear of being shamed by the community.

Idk why you feel you have to misrepresent my argument deliberately.

Like, I've already directly addressed this misrepresentation of what I said. But you stick with this version because you can pretend like I'm a ridiculous person.

It is my word against yours at this point, although I think I saved the conversation because of how ridiculous it was. Multiple users were laughing at how you were trying to make the case that people would continue to work the same way under communism.
---

COVxy posted...

nicklebro posted...

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.

If I build a tower with an unstable foundation and it collapses, and I do it again, but with that same unstable foundation, and it collapses again, is it fair to say that building a tower is a myth? Nobody could do it?

Yes it is indeed proved to be a myth that you can build a tower with an unstable foundation. And communism is that unstable foundation.

I guess to you it doesn't matter that it's always resulted in the most sadistic and murderous regimes know to man, because technically you can't claim it's impossible to get it to work.

Lol well lemme know how that logic works out for you.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

nicklebro you are wasting your time with COVxy. He is dishonest. Recently there was a topic where we were discussing how communists would compel people to work for no profit. Particularly the dirty and dangerous and undesirable jobs.

His view was that people will gladly work 40+ hours a week under a communist system, because they'd be bored and depressed otherwise. Godnorgosh's view was that people would work out of fear of being shamed by the community.

None of them wanted to admit that you would need to use force to compel people to work. They just came up with bullshit explanations because they're more committed to hard socialism/communism than reality.

Really shows how ignorant some people are of history.

Lol there was even an old saying in communist Russia, "they pretend to pay us, we pretend to work."

You're right about him being completely dishonest too. Anyone who will deny the results of every single instance of communism being attempted but will automatically accept the notion that people will work 40 hours a week for fun is obviously delusional and completely pathological.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It is my word against yours at this point, although I think I saved the conversation because of how ridiculous it was. Multiple users were laughing at how you were trying to make the case that people would continue to work the same way under communism.

No, what happens is you say:
"COVxy thinks that people will shovel shit for no money!"

and then they laugh.

You are literally just entertaining an echo chamber knocking down strawmen for fun.
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

They say that reasoning by analogy rather than first principles means you have no real argument.

Who, exactly?

Fucking stupid saying, if you ask me. I can't think of a single scientific talk that didn't use analogical reasoning to reframe complex questions so that they can be digested more clearly.

People who try to reason by analogy frame analogies in such a way as to beg the question. You were begging the question, not aiding with digestion.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.

how many times has it been attempted without at least one major world superpower trying to prevent it?

Iran was already unstable and on a downward spiral before the US and the British got involved. Romania collapsed on its own. The Soviet Union had plenty of freedom to attempt socialism and they learned the hard way that it does not work. The Scandinavian countries know that they couldn't provide the safety nets they have if they were not heavily invested into the profit-bringing capitalistic engine of the world.

An advanced and stable society cannot exist without profit, without first achieving immortality and technology that is indistinguishable from magic.

yea but then there are a bunch of other instances where the people try and instate a communist govt and then the US intervenes to prevent it, like with Chile in the 70s
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

It is my word against yours at this point, although I think I saved the conversation because of how ridiculous it was. Multiple users were laughing at how you were trying to make the case that people would continue to work the same way under communism.

No, what happens is you say:
"COVxy thinks that people will shovel shit for no money!"

and then they laugh.

You are literally just entertaining an echo chamber knocking down strawmen for fun.

So you never said or suggested in any way that people would work 40+ hours in order to not be bored/depressed?

You backpedaled later on in that thread and tried to make it seem like you're saying some people can work for passion rather than money, but that was in fact the point you were making.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

People who try to reason by analogy frame analogies in such a way as to beg the question. You were begging the question, not aiding with digestion.

I wasn't.

We can all agree that communist societies were not founded upon their actual philosophical principles, no?

How can I claim that a system is impossible when every attempt at it hasn't actually used that system?

The unstable foundation is the incomplete principles, the building being the instantiation of communism. It's a fairly straight-forward way to demonstrate the fallacy in this reasoning.

It literally doesn't follow. I'm not even arguing in favor of communism, just that the logic used here is shit.
---

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

averagejoel posted...

nicklebro posted...

Exactly, it's a myth born out of pure imagination. As opposed to Republics and democratic values which emerged over time as an organic evolution of governance and civilization.

Anything that aims for a complete utopian society will always run into the problems communists do. The methods of achieving and maintaining a utopian society always turn it into a dystopian nightmare.

how many times has it been attempted without at least one major world superpower trying to prevent it?

Iran was already unstable and on a downward spiral before the US and the British got involved. Romania collapsed on its own. The Soviet Union had plenty of freedom to attempt socialism and they learned the hard way that it does not work. The Scandinavian countries know that they couldn't provide the safety nets they have if they were not heavily invested into the profit-bringing capitalistic engine of the world.

An advanced and stable society cannot exist without profit, without first achieving immortality and technology that is indistinguishable from magic.

yea but then there are a bunch of other instances where the people try and instate a communist govt and then the US intervenes to prevent it, like with Chile in the 70s

Maybe. I need to read about Chile in the 70s. I'm skeptical though, because you people tried to argue this bullshit about Iran. And after studying about Iran I saw that their attempt at socialism introduced deep instability and chaos long before the Shah ever gave the US and the British permission to change the power dynamic. I bet it's the same type of situation with Chile.

How do you explain Venezuela btw?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

So you never said or suggested in any way that people would work 40+ hours in order to not be bored/depressed?

No, I suggested that not working at all is aversive. That was my original point.
---

COVxy posted...

We can all agree that communist societies were not founded upon their actual philosophical principles, no?

How can I claim that a system is impossible when every attempt at it hasn't actually used that system?

The unstable foundation is the incomplete principles, the building being the instantiation of communism. It's a fairly straight-forward way to demonstrate the fallacy in this reasoning.

We know it to be impossible because we saw the results and now understand the contradictory nature of communism. But back then many people attempted it and they followed the main principles as best as they could. To say that it was never actually attempted is vacuous and dishonest. Agreed?
---

COVxy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

So you never said or suggested in any way that people would work 40+ hours in order to not be bored/depressed?

No, I suggested that not working at all is aversive. That was my original point.

You were repeatedly arguing that point in response to the context of communism and compelled labor and people not being ok with laboring if they weren't profiting. It was very clear what I and the other posters in that topic were talking about.
---