Topic: When you spend your entire day unemployed and "trolling" liberals and SJWs, are you, in fact...
Anonymous A started this discussion 12 years ago #36,099
...the one that is mad as fuck?
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #494,054
decibelmilliwatts !EfVwyVp5SE joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #494,055
> unemployed
I appreciate the sentiment but please don't shame people for refusing to participate in the capitalist oppression machine.
I appreciate the sentiment but please don't shame people for refusing to participate in the capitalist oppression machine.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #494,056
Metæ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 16 minutes later, 26 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #494,057
Proud to be gainfully employed.
@494,055 (decibelmilliwatts !EfVwyVp5SE)
Why is it that the flow of immigrants is always out of communist countries? Shouldn't it be the other way round? Or do you really believe the Berlin Wall was to keep the West out?
@494,055 (decibelmilliwatts !EfVwyVp5SE)
Why is it that the flow of immigrants is always out of communist countries? Shouldn't it be the other way round? Or do you really believe the Berlin Wall was to keep the West out?
kook !!32zdfdzi+ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #494,058
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 31 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,059
@494,055 (decibelmilliwatts !EfVwyVp5SE)
> petit bourgeoisie swine living off the backs of the working man
> petit bourgeoisie swine living off the backs of the working man
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 59 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,063
@494,057 (Metæ)
> Why is it that the flow of immigrants is always out of communist countries?
Because rather than subscribing to actual communism, the leaders of those countries made the choice to be oppressive, power-mad and greedy.
> Why is it that the flow of immigrants is always out of communist countries?
Because rather than subscribing to actual communism, the leaders of those countries made the choice to be oppressive, power-mad and greedy.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,064
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 40 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,065
ShitArse !!2TbW0trec joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,066
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,068
@494,064 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
It's failed in: China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, Mongolia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, North Korea, Vietnam, Poland, Cambodia, Laos, but those don't count cause they weren't doing it right.
It's failed in: China, the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, East Germany, Mongolia, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, North Korea, Vietnam, Poland, Cambodia, Laos, but those don't count cause they weren't doing it right.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY replied with this 12 years ago, 41 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,075
@previous (Metæ)
> Yugoslavia
IIRC it kind of worked well there. Of course Tito couldn't really get rid of all the nationalism in the area.
> Yugoslavia
IIRC it kind of worked well there. Of course Tito couldn't really get rid of all the nationalism in the area.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,079
...For a Klondike bar?
decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 33 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,080
@494,055 (decibelmilliwatts !EfVwyVp5SE)
Impersonator.
@494,068 (Metæ)
China: Mao didn't keep his buddies and subordinates under control, and then Xiaoping went all revisionist and stuff, leading to the current situation.
USSR: things were fine until Stalin; Stalin was legitimately atrocious, and governments since were of varying (in)effectiveness.
Cuba: entirely due to the US embargo.
North Korea: has, over the past 70 years, entirely abandoned communism. They officially have nothing to do with the ideology pushed by Marx and Lenin, et al., any more - they're all Juche and Songun. Weirdo Korean nationalist fuckery with a quasi-national socialist component to it.
East Germany: same deal as the USSR, kinda. Also, the professionals there were disproportionately right-wingers, leading to a weirdo fucking "going Galt" situation.
Mongolia: not sure about that.
Hungary: same.
Yugoslavia: they were actually doing goddamn well under Tito. Like, seriously. ...without him, though, ethnic tensions quickly exploded the country.
Albania: not sure about this.
Vietnam: they seem to be doing decently these days? I'm not sure how well they did it earlier on.
Poland: once again, not sure.
Cambodia: they weren't even Marxist in the first place. They took inspiration from Marxism, but it was bizarre reactionary agrarianism. Not actually Marxist at all. There's a reason that Thatcher and her contemporaries liked the Khmer Rouge.
Laos: not sure about this.
Impersonator.
@494,068 (Metæ)
China: Mao didn't keep his buddies and subordinates under control, and then Xiaoping went all revisionist and stuff, leading to the current situation.
USSR: things were fine until Stalin; Stalin was legitimately atrocious, and governments since were of varying (in)effectiveness.
Cuba: entirely due to the US embargo.
North Korea: has, over the past 70 years, entirely abandoned communism. They officially have nothing to do with the ideology pushed by Marx and Lenin, et al., any more - they're all Juche and Songun. Weirdo Korean nationalist fuckery with a quasi-national socialist component to it.
East Germany: same deal as the USSR, kinda. Also, the professionals there were disproportionately right-wingers, leading to a weirdo fucking "going Galt" situation.
Mongolia: not sure about that.
Hungary: same.
Yugoslavia: they were actually doing goddamn well under Tito. Like, seriously. ...without him, though, ethnic tensions quickly exploded the country.
Albania: not sure about this.
Vietnam: they seem to be doing decently these days? I'm not sure how well they did it earlier on.
Poland: once again, not sure.
Cambodia: they weren't even Marxist in the first place. They took inspiration from Marxism, but it was bizarre reactionary agrarianism. Not actually Marxist at all. There's a reason that Thatcher and her contemporaries liked the Khmer Rouge.
Laos: not sure about this.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 7 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,084
sjws are still mad as fuck though
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
My FRIEND, you are SHITTING THROUGH YOUR MOUTH, please stop posting.
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
My FRIEND, you are SHITTING THROUGH YOUR MOUTH, please stop posting.
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 24 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,085
@494,080 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> China: Mao didn't keep his buddies and subordinates under control, and then Xiaoping went all revisionist and stuff, leading to the current situation.
Really? Mao himself was a bigger problem than his subordinates. First he led the Great Leap Forward, which was disasterous for China. And then, when his party tried to edge him away from power after that fuck up, he launched the Cultural Revolution which plunged the country into chaos. he wasn't really very good for China at all, in the long run.
> USSR: things were fine until Stalin; Stalin was legitimately atrocious, and governments since were of varying (in)effectiveness.
Are you sure? Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
A communist economic policy was being detrimental to the USSR, so Lenin had to introduce a new policy which was quite capitalist in how it operated. Communist China also did a similar thing after Mao, IRRC, incorporating elements of capitalism in order to stay in the game.
But anyway, in regard to communism in general, I just think that history speaks for itself. With Communism, we have a catalogue of failiure, moves away from actual communistic economic policy, mad dictators coming to power. Meanwhile, it's capitalist countries that correlate the most with progressive thinking, a good average quality of life and political stability. I think that the bigger picture is fairly clear: capitalism is associated with success, communism often goes wrong.
But, in closing, I think that Libery Prime says it best.
> China: Mao didn't keep his buddies and subordinates under control, and then Xiaoping went all revisionist and stuff, leading to the current situation.
Really? Mao himself was a bigger problem than his subordinates. First he led the Great Leap Forward, which was disasterous for China. And then, when his party tried to edge him away from power after that fuck up, he launched the Cultural Revolution which plunged the country into chaos. he wasn't really very good for China at all, in the long run.
> USSR: things were fine until Stalin; Stalin was legitimately atrocious, and governments since were of varying (in)effectiveness.
Are you sure? Check this out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy
A communist economic policy was being detrimental to the USSR, so Lenin had to introduce a new policy which was quite capitalist in how it operated. Communist China also did a similar thing after Mao, IRRC, incorporating elements of capitalism in order to stay in the game.
But anyway, in regard to communism in general, I just think that history speaks for itself. With Communism, we have a catalogue of failiure, moves away from actual communistic economic policy, mad dictators coming to power. Meanwhile, it's capitalist countries that correlate the most with progressive thinking, a good average quality of life and political stability. I think that the bigger picture is fairly clear: capitalism is associated with success, communism often goes wrong.
But, in closing, I think that Libery Prime says it best.
Dr. !aL1sLG5aP6 joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 34 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,088
@494,080 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
Juchesasang is the correct mode of socialism free of the foibles ill-omened of Eastern European socialism, as Ko Pong, author of Guiding Light of Truth and Destiny, explains:
"Before Marxism emerged, there had been materialistic philosophies that asserted
the material character of the world, but they fell into idealism in dealing with social
phenomena even while explaining natural phenomena on the basis of materialism. The
establishment of Marxist historical materialism dealt a telling blow to idealism, and
materialism achieved a crowning victory.
Marxism-Leninism proved that society does not develop by some mysterious
factor or by "superhuman" will; it showed that material living conditions based on
the mode of production of material wealth form the basis of society, and that
society changes as the mode of production develops. This was a great
philosophical discovery that brought about a radical change in the development of
world-views. With the establishment of historical materialism, the Marxists
evaluated, idealism, which had maintained itself on the strength of social
phenomena, lost its last refuge. This was a right evaluation by Marxists of the
significance of Marx's discovery of historical materialism. But it was so only in the
historical conditions of those days.
Even after the enunciation of historical materialism, idealism proved to be
unyielding, and it put on a new guise in the era of imperialism. It revived mainly
in the form of subjective idealism that distorted human nature, in the form of
human philosophy. This suggests another point of issue: that the principle for
shaping the destiny of man, who lives in the world, must be based not only on an
elucidation of the nature of the world but also on a scientific exposition of the
essential attributes of man. Without elucidation of man's nature idealism cannot
be finally destroyed.
In the era of imperialism idealistic philosophy attacked Marxism on the "nature
of man", a virtual gap in Marxism. Existentialism, pragmatism, freudianism,
personalism and other modern bourgeois philosophies are based on a distortion of
man's nature and thereby available to justify colonial predatory wars, racist
oppression, murder, rape, degradation, debauchery, pessimism, decadence,
eroticity, mammonism, individualism and egoism. Philosophers had dwelt on the
essence of human nature for several centuries but had failed to give it a scientific
explanation. Pending this explanation, it was impossible to elucidate the principle
of shaping human destiny.
'' Marxism, which considered man in his social relations, meant no more than an
overall denial of the idealistic explanation of human being, for, it too failed to elucidate
human nature. '' The principle of shaping one's own destiny, which clarifies the position
and role of man in the world, can be established '' only when there is a scientific
exposition of human nature. ''
Kim Jong II said:
"The Juche idea expounded that man is a social being with independence,
creativity and consciousness, and thus gave a perfect philosophical elucidation of
man."
Man approaches the world in a revolutionary and active manner and remoulds it
purposefully, because he is a social being with independence, creativity and
consciousness. This being his real nature, man is entitled to the status of the most
powerful being in the world and the only dominator and remaker of the world. How
many nations and peoples have perished in the wars that trampled upon their
independence !
Thus, several centuries of groping for the guiding light of destiny has at last come
to an end. "
tl;dr Marxism's inferiority stems from its lack of essentalist focus on the right existential question of man's determinism.
Also, Mongolian's racial superiority is objectively based in study of their intellectual and cranio-facial characteristics, yet, they never got there by establishing an imperialistic oligarhical hegemon over the world's resources, nor in their nations exist heavily meritocratic, aristocratic, or class-stratified societies, the arguments often used to dismiss innate superiority of Whites. Explain.
Juchesasang is the correct mode of socialism free of the foibles ill-omened of Eastern European socialism, as Ko Pong, author of Guiding Light of Truth and Destiny, explains:
"Before Marxism emerged, there had been materialistic philosophies that asserted
the material character of the world, but they fell into idealism in dealing with social
phenomena even while explaining natural phenomena on the basis of materialism. The
establishment of Marxist historical materialism dealt a telling blow to idealism, and
materialism achieved a crowning victory.
Marxism-Leninism proved that society does not develop by some mysterious
factor or by "superhuman" will; it showed that material living conditions based on
the mode of production of material wealth form the basis of society, and that
society changes as the mode of production develops. This was a great
philosophical discovery that brought about a radical change in the development of
world-views. With the establishment of historical materialism, the Marxists
evaluated, idealism, which had maintained itself on the strength of social
phenomena, lost its last refuge. This was a right evaluation by Marxists of the
significance of Marx's discovery of historical materialism. But it was so only in the
historical conditions of those days.
Even after the enunciation of historical materialism, idealism proved to be
unyielding, and it put on a new guise in the era of imperialism. It revived mainly
in the form of subjective idealism that distorted human nature, in the form of
human philosophy. This suggests another point of issue: that the principle for
shaping the destiny of man, who lives in the world, must be based not only on an
elucidation of the nature of the world but also on a scientific exposition of the
essential attributes of man. Without elucidation of man's nature idealism cannot
be finally destroyed.
In the era of imperialism idealistic philosophy attacked Marxism on the "nature
of man", a virtual gap in Marxism. Existentialism, pragmatism, freudianism,
personalism and other modern bourgeois philosophies are based on a distortion of
man's nature and thereby available to justify colonial predatory wars, racist
oppression, murder, rape, degradation, debauchery, pessimism, decadence,
eroticity, mammonism, individualism and egoism. Philosophers had dwelt on the
essence of human nature for several centuries but had failed to give it a scientific
explanation. Pending this explanation, it was impossible to elucidate the principle
of shaping human destiny.
'' Marxism, which considered man in his social relations, meant no more than an
overall denial of the idealistic explanation of human being, for, it too failed to elucidate
human nature. '' The principle of shaping one's own destiny, which clarifies the position
and role of man in the world, can be established '' only when there is a scientific
exposition of human nature. ''
Kim Jong II said:
"The Juche idea expounded that man is a social being with independence,
creativity and consciousness, and thus gave a perfect philosophical elucidation of
man."
Man approaches the world in a revolutionary and active manner and remoulds it
purposefully, because he is a social being with independence, creativity and
consciousness. This being his real nature, man is entitled to the status of the most
powerful being in the world and the only dominator and remaker of the world. How
many nations and peoples have perished in the wars that trampled upon their
independence !
Thus, several centuries of groping for the guiding light of destiny has at last come
to an end. "
tl;dr Marxism's inferiority stems from its lack of essentalist focus on the right existential question of man's determinism.
Also, Mongolian's racial superiority is objectively based in study of their intellectual and cranio-facial characteristics, yet, they never got there by establishing an imperialistic oligarhical hegemon over the world's resources, nor in their nations exist heavily meritocratic, aristocratic, or class-stratified societies, the arguments often used to dismiss innate superiority of Whites. Explain.
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
kook !!32zdfdzi+ replied with this 12 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,100
@494,080 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
explain to us how juche theory is incompatible with communism.
explain to us how juche theory is incompatible with communism.
Dr. !aL1sLG5aP6 replied with this 12 years ago, 20 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,101
@previous (kook !!32zdfdzi+)
He doesn't know because he's an eejit who has not set his eyes upon one iota of Kimilsungist doctrine.
More parallels between Juche and the rest of the compendium of philosophical world-view may be found here, and from this you may discern for yourself where it falls on the geo-political spectrum: http://www.archive.org/stream/GuidingLightOfDestiny/TheGuidingLightofDestiny_djvu.txt
He doesn't know because he's an eejit who has not set his eyes upon one iota of Kimilsungist doctrine.
More parallels between Juche and the rest of the compendium of philosophical world-view may be found here, and from this you may discern for yourself where it falls on the geo-political spectrum: http://www.archive.org/stream/GuidingLightOfDestiny/TheGuidingLightofDestiny_djvu.txt
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Metæ replied with this 12 years ago, 2 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,104
@494,075 (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
I guess he was like their Saddam. It was destined to fall apart though, like Iraq is now. Tito was kind of based though and told the Soviets anmd Chinese to get fucked. Also, now that I think about it, I fogot Romania, where the workers were so happy with their communism that they had a revolution and lined Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife up against a wall and shot them on Christmas, 1989.
@494,080 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> China: Mao didn't keep his buddies and subordinates under control, and then Xiaoping went all revisionist and stuff, leading to the current situation.
And then they began the climb out of poverty. Mao's policies killed more people than the Holocaust. China's no longer communist, now they're authoritarian with a semi-capitalist economy.
> USSR: things were fine until Stalin; Stalin was legitimately atrocious, and governments since were of varying (in)effectiveness.
Even if Trotsky had been in charge, it would have collapsed. Planned economies just don't work.
> Cuba: entirely due to the US embargo.
But the US was (and is) the only country embargoing them. Don't get me wrong: I think the embargo's retarded but seriously, whats to stop them trading with all of Latin America? Or Asia? Or Europe? Also why won't they give their citizens civil rights?
> North Korea: has, over the past 70 years, entirely abandoned communism. They officially have nothing to do with the ideology pushed by Marx and Lenin, et al., any more - they're all Juche and Songun. Weirdo Korean nationalist fuckery with a quasi-national socialist component to it.
True, it's hard to say exactly when but they ended Marxism-Leninism by 1998 IIRC. But communism still didn't work for them.
> East Germany: same deal as the USSR, kinda. Also, the professionals there were disproportionately right-wingers, leading to a weirdo fucking "going Galt" situation.
I don't know what you mean here. You mean all the professionals fled to the West before they put the wall up?
> Mongolia: not sure about that.
> Hungary: same.
> Yugoslavia: they were actually doing goddamn well under Tito. Like, seriously. ...without him, though, ethnic tensions quickly exploded the country.
Just like Iraq under Saddam. It's not right though, to force people to live with each other under arbitrarily defined borders if they don't want to.
> Albania: not sure about this.
> Vietnam: they seem to be doing decently these days? I'm not sure how well they did it earlier on.
They are, because of market reforms. They did the same thing China did, economically.
> Poland: once again, not sure.
> Cambodia: they weren't even Marxist in the first place. They took inspiration from Marxism, but it was bizarre reactionary agrarianism. Not actually Marxist at all. There's a reason that Thatcher and her contemporaries liked the Khmer Rouge.
But you could argue that none of the communist states were really Marxist, a sort of "No true Marxist" logic.
> Laos: not sure about this.
I guess he was like their Saddam. It was destined to fall apart though, like Iraq is now. Tito was kind of based though and told the Soviets anmd Chinese to get fucked. Also, now that I think about it, I fogot Romania, where the workers were so happy with their communism that they had a revolution and lined Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife up against a wall and shot them on Christmas, 1989.
@494,080 (decibelmilliwatts !!beW+FQoWB)
> China: Mao didn't keep his buddies and subordinates under control, and then Xiaoping went all revisionist and stuff, leading to the current situation.
And then they began the climb out of poverty. Mao's policies killed more people than the Holocaust. China's no longer communist, now they're authoritarian with a semi-capitalist economy.
> USSR: things were fine until Stalin; Stalin was legitimately atrocious, and governments since were of varying (in)effectiveness.
Even if Trotsky had been in charge, it would have collapsed. Planned economies just don't work.
> Cuba: entirely due to the US embargo.
But the US was (and is) the only country embargoing them. Don't get me wrong: I think the embargo's retarded but seriously, whats to stop them trading with all of Latin America? Or Asia? Or Europe? Also why won't they give their citizens civil rights?
> North Korea: has, over the past 70 years, entirely abandoned communism. They officially have nothing to do with the ideology pushed by Marx and Lenin, et al., any more - they're all Juche and Songun. Weirdo Korean nationalist fuckery with a quasi-national socialist component to it.
True, it's hard to say exactly when but they ended Marxism-Leninism by 1998 IIRC. But communism still didn't work for them.
> East Germany: same deal as the USSR, kinda. Also, the professionals there were disproportionately right-wingers, leading to a weirdo fucking "going Galt" situation.
I don't know what you mean here. You mean all the professionals fled to the West before they put the wall up?
> Mongolia: not sure about that.
> Hungary: same.
> Yugoslavia: they were actually doing goddamn well under Tito. Like, seriously. ...without him, though, ethnic tensions quickly exploded the country.
Just like Iraq under Saddam. It's not right though, to force people to live with each other under arbitrarily defined borders if they don't want to.
> Albania: not sure about this.
> Vietnam: they seem to be doing decently these days? I'm not sure how well they did it earlier on.
They are, because of market reforms. They did the same thing China did, economically.
> Poland: once again, not sure.
> Cambodia: they weren't even Marxist in the first place. They took inspiration from Marxism, but it was bizarre reactionary agrarianism. Not actually Marxist at all. There's a reason that Thatcher and her contemporaries liked the Khmer Rouge.
But you could argue that none of the communist states were really Marxist, a sort of "No true Marxist" logic.
> Laos: not sure about this.
swamplights !!0lQNsDoq/ joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,105
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 3 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #494,124
@494,055 (decibelmilliwatts !EfVwyVp5SE)
Grow up damn you are so dumb you can't say shit like that unless you live off the grid and are entirely self sufficient otherwise you sound like a dumb ass who doesn't have a job and lives off his parents dime and uses some crooked ideology as an excuse to not work
Get a job nerd
Freelance commissions of shitty drawings of stupid dragons fucking
Cut off your greasy mop and sell it
Idk you are just so dumb damn
Peace y'all
Grow up damn you are so dumb you can't say shit like that unless you live off the grid and are entirely self sufficient otherwise you sound like a dumb ass who doesn't have a job and lives off his parents dime and uses some crooked ideology as an excuse to not work
Get a job nerd
Freelance commissions of shitty drawings of stupid dragons fucking
Cut off your greasy mop and sell it
Idk you are just so dumb damn
Peace y'all
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #494,180
@previous (M)
> Grow up damn you are so dumb you can't say shit like that unless you live off the grid and are entirely self sufficient otherwise you sound like a dumb ass who doesn't have a job and lives off his parents dime and uses some crooked ideology as an excuse to not work
> Get a job nerd
> Freelance commissions of shitty drawings of stupid dragons fucking
> Cut off your greasy mop and sell it
> Idk you are just so dumb damn
>
> Peace y'all
hey goosey
> Grow up damn you are so dumb you can't say shit like that unless you live off the grid and are entirely self sufficient otherwise you sound like a dumb ass who doesn't have a job and lives off his parents dime and uses some crooked ideology as an excuse to not work
> Get a job nerd
> Freelance commissions of shitty drawings of stupid dragons fucking
> Cut off your greasy mop and sell it
> Idk you are just so dumb damn
>
> Peace y'all
hey goosey