EDIT: no, I don't sympathize with nazis (neither I sympathize with those who call everyone nazi when they're losing an argument ;)

  • AlpineSteakHouse [any]
    ·
    1 year ago

    You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism. Dem Socs are well-meaning but idealistic, not optimistic but the political philosophy of idealism. Soc Dems are supporters of a kinder capitalism for the Imperial core but keeping the child slaves mining cobalt in the Congo.

    The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory. They were harsh but you were implying that keeping exploitation of the third world is preferable to socialism.

    Dude you still don’t stop worker exploitation, don’t solve the contradiction of working and capitalist classes, don’t end imperialism or colonialism (social democracy outsources exploitation to the third world)

    Ok let me know how your method works out

    • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
      ·
      1 year ago

      You said you supported Social Democracy not Democratic Socialism.

      What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.

      The fact that you think these are the same proves the original posters point that you should read theory.

      I have, but thanks for the suggestion.

      • CarbonScored [any]
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Assuming people are using words in the way they are widely and commonly accepted to mean (I mean, just look at Wikipedia for an easy starting point) is not a bad thing?

          • Alaskaball [comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I'm innudated with endless notifications from you dweebs, mistakes happen.

            People keep telling me that I shit my pants based off the way I smell and the growing brown stain on my pants but they're all tankies because they're all wrong

      • uralsolo
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        deleted by creator

        • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
          ·
          1 year ago

          What incredible insight. The word 'social' is referring to 'socialism' and so is the relation between 'democracy' and 'democratic'.

          It would take an idiot to mix these up, right?

          • AlpineSteakHouse [any]
            ·
            1 year ago

            The word 'social' is referring to 'socialism' and so is the relation between 'democracy' and 'democratic'.

            I guess social security = socialism security in your world? Social welfare programs are not socialism and if your political education included anything beyond Elizabeth Warren's policy page you'd know that.

            • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, social policies are not socialism, however, they do generally benefit the working class.

              You guys are so worried about centrists that you are ignoring the fact that the US had a far right coup attempt less than three years ago.

                • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No it has not been far right since 1776. I guess when you make up facts it's easy to prove your point though.

                  By the way, when's the glorious peoples revolution supposed to begin? More importantly, where are the people???

                  • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Read Liberalism A Counter History or shut up about shit you don't understand.

                    The people already revolted in the worlds largest country and their success will convince people to make similar steps once it's made obvious you're being fucked by your far right regimes. The people are hungering in most of the world and they will stand up you brain wormed fucker

                    • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      Read this book I just read last month or you don't know anything!

                      It's funny, no matter how many reading assignments I actually partake in, it's never enough. Perhaps your movement would be more successful if you spent less time alienating anyone right of Ho Chi Minh.

                        • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                          ·
                          edit-2
                          1 year ago

                          Funny you mention that. Whenever I do cite any "theory" that I have read, you well-read individuals somehow always disappear and avoid discussing anything. I'm sure you'll either A) do the same thing or B) move the goalposts all the way to Laos/Cambodia.

                          https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/2650764

                          • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
                            ·
                            1 year ago

                            Lol is that your best fuckin example? You didn't cite Marx lol you just misunderstood an analysis for a method and made a shit argument. You didn't deserve a good reply and dont now. I'm all for whatever analyses come out to peacefully move forward, but you're just preserving the current world for your benefit not trying to prevent some deaths or something. Millions die yearly to preventable causes which would end with global socialism.

                            • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                              ·
                              1 year ago

                              I have never had the opportunity to have a more in-depth discussion because you guys seem more interested in smugly acting more intelligent than everyone, forgetting you need to recruit "people" to have a "people's revolution".

                              Since you're one of the wise leaders of the revolution, what is your plan to bring your superior ideologies to the masses?

                              • commiewithoutorgans [he/him, comrade/them]
                                ·
                                1 year ago

                                I'm not first bringing ideologies to the masses, it's first proving a method works and then explaining why and how. You do this through Analyze the rising maladies of a system, describe how they've come about and explain how the solution only moves in 1 direction, socialism. Now I'm not gonna waste time explaining at any more depth until you prove yourself to be someone at all worth my time here by showing you've read literally anything relevant to the discussion.

                                I'm not more intelligent than the masses, no in fact I think that this is precisely only how you can think. There are those who have the time to develop certain skills which can be applied to reaching the intelligence and needs of the masses and those for whom that time is difficult and they build expertise in their specific fields. A vanguard is exactly the people who learn how to learn from the masses, not the opposite. Lenin was beloved for his ability to do this, and Stalin soon after with similar astonishingly high approvals.

                                Let me remind you, you're the one who thinks you're smarter and better than those masses who had to perform revolution to improve their conditions. I think they're just better than you

      • AlpineSteakHouse [any]
        ·
        1 year ago

        What a terrible mistake to make! Perhaps you should have assumed it was the correct orientation of the two words that are spelled exactly the same.

        Your beef is with the English Language not me. How is it my fault that you misidentified yourself? Funnily enough, you still don't identify your actual political position. It's clear that the only political position you'd take is what gives you an advantage in the argument. Fucking debatebros lol.

        I have, but thanks for the suggestion.

        Reading so much theory that you confuse two different political ideologies. Sometimes I read so much theory that that I claim to be a monarchist when I really mean to say I'm an anti-monarchist. Obviously the other person should have understood what I meant. Your literally on a communication medium that allows you to plan and edit your comments. You have no excuse for making this grade school mistake.

        • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Debatebro? That's what Hexbear does best.

          I would actually love to engage in good faith discussions, but Hexbear users only operate in bad faith, particularly by sealioning. Like clockwork, you don't engage in ideas but rather give reading assignments.

          I've read Das Kapital and agree with virtually all the premises about how society is unfair to those who actually generate the surplus value and think that we need to fix a system that breaks cyclically, as Karl Marx correctly predicted in volume I. The only solutions I've seen presented are a total revolution a la 1917, which occured before globalization. Anything close to this in the current globalized world will kill at minimum hundreds of millions globally due to interdependence on products that Marx would consider "needs", such as medications and medical equipment like dialysis machines.

          The difference between you and me is that I'd rather work to reestablish democracy away from capital interests. I don't want a dictatorship, I want a functional democracy. Propaganda is often used to disillusion the working class from democracy, and if you don't vote in elections then you are clearly part of the problem.

          Edit: Lmao. Citing"theory" gets crickets from the people who endlessly say "you just haven't read theory". It's like they don't know what to do with someone who reads to understand, rather than "reading" just to virtue signal.

          • brain_in_a_box [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Debatebro? That's what Hexbear does best.

            Hahaha, literally "I know you are but what am I"

          • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            reading" just to virtue signal.

            Lmao peak angry chud solipsism. "I would never read except to lord it over others, so that must be what these commies are doing."

                • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Cuba is your best example, however, it is a socialist state and not communism.

                  China has three stock exchanges and is not communist:

                  • http://english.sse.com.cn/
                  • http://www.bse.cn/
                  • https://www.szse.cn/English/index.html

                  The USSR never got to the "people's dictatorship", ya know, because the dictators never completed that step. Despite being a very powerful country at their peak, the USSR only exists as a memory of a failed state.

                    • mustardman@discuss.tchncs.de
                      ·
                      1 year ago

                      "The sky is green and I know you dumb neoliberal are going to try and tell me it's blue!"

                      How do you reconcile the fact that China has more stock exchanges than BurgerlandUSA?

                      Pretty hard to defend, so I expected you to claim bad faith and throw in the towel. Your Hexbear friends have better endurance and wit.