|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:None of that contradicts what I said one iota. You even went so far as to say I'm thinking about property rights too Anglocentrically, because you know that what I said is correct. You just can't help but try to get in a weak burn. Pener Kropoopkin posted:The CCP arranged things so there aren't really such a thing as property "rights" in China.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Americans do actually have problems thinking critically when it comes to communism and socialism thanks to McCarthyism and the Cold War. A good cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 08:27
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:it'd be hard to re-explain something i never said since i never claimed the dprk is "good." there can be bad or worse socialisms just like there can be "better" capitalisms (social democracy) Ok right I think the word good is a problem you. So trying relatives for a moment which Korea is 'better". Homework Explainer posted:this dumbass post made me laugh a lot, also. thank you Heh, that parenthetical is specifically meant to grab your attention. Consider this a small window into how we see your posting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2016 14:05
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Americans do actually have problems thinking critically when it comes to communism and socialism thanks to McCarthyism and the Cold War. A good cartoon. See also: the poor sufferers of Liberal Cranio-Rectal inversion posting itt. Hamprince, as;dha;ldjhgadsg, and others, I am truely sorry for you're lots
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
"Actually, your head is up your rear end, and I, the one fighting for a dead political ideology on the internet, am the well adjusted one."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:"Actually, your head is up your rear end, and I, the one fighting for a dead political ideology on the internet, am the well adjusted one." I haven't been reading this thread thankfully but I assume the person he's talking to is also fighting for a political ideology on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
I would primarily describe myself as anticommunist
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:I haven't been reading this thread thankfully but I assume the person he's talking to is also fighting for a political ideology on the internet. I said dead ideology. Wherever there is evil in the hearts of men, liberalism is alive and well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Al! posted:I would primarily describe myself as anticommunist Same, but anti-you
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:I said dead ideology. The Global South begs to differ.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
Flashback to a bit earlier about Chinese property law, the LOC has a write up on the 2004 Constitution https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2015/03/chinese-law-on-private-ownership-of-real-property/ quote:The PRC Constitution on Private Property While the state technically owns all the land, that all it owns. Literally anything else on the land can be privately owned. So even from a de jure perspective legally China going full communism seems a bit tricky. quote:However, individuals may privately own houses and apartments, i.e. buildings and structures above the land, but not the land on which the houses and apartments are situated. The Property Rights Law provides that “[i]ndividuals are entitled to enjoy ownership of such immovable and movable properties as their lawful incomes, houses/apartments, articles for daily use, tools of production, and raw materials.” (Property Rights Law, art. 64.) When real estate is transferred, according to the Urban Real Estate Law, the ownership of houses/apartments and the land use right of the land on which the buildings are situated are transferred simultaneously. (Urban Real Estate Law, art. 32.) Atrocious Joe fucked around with this message at 04:49 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The Global South begs to differ. When even the FARC can't be bothered to keep this poo poo up any longer, I think it's safe to say that the ideology is at least unresponsive and on life support.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:01
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:When even the FARC can't be bothered to keep this poo poo up any longer, I think it's safe to say that the ideology is at least unresponsive and on life support. The FARC gave up on their forever war with the Colombian state and started focusing on their political wing. They didn't just quit. The reactionaries couldn't help but murder leftists and union organizers though, so there's a good chance the militias will be mobilized again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The FARC gave up on their forever war with the Colombian state and started focusing on their political wing. They didn't just quit. The reactionaries couldn't help but murder leftists and union organizers though, so there's a good chance the militias will be mobilized again. Yeah, they already tried that once, it resulted in nearly everyone in their political wing getting butchered in the streets by said reactionaries. The fact that they negotiated a deal (not yet ratified) which involves them disarming so that they can try that winning strategy again suggests that even they've come to believe that revolutionary socialism may be a dead end.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Yeah, they already tried that once, it resulted in nearly everyone in their political wing getting butchered in the streets by said reactionaries. The fact that they negotiated a deal (not yet ratified) which involves them disarming so that they can try that winning strategy again suggests that even they've come to believe that revolutionary socialism may be a dead end. Revolutionary Socialism doesn't mean fighting an indefinite dirty war, dingus. FARC was founded in reaction to the large scale violence which was being perpetrated on leftists and peasants. It's fundamentally a self-defense organization. If another wave of mass murder is perpetrated against leftists, then they'll remobilize. Eventually people get tired of fighting a war, and they're willing to give peace a chance - sometimes even if it means taking the risk of being murdered. Why do you think communism even exists in the first place? Pener Kropoopkin fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Revolutionary Socialism doesn't mean fighting an indefinite dirty war, dingus. This is only true in the sense that there's an endpoint where revolutionary socialism loses Otherwise revolutionary socialism has always mired itself in perpetual war quote:The FARC gave up on their forever war with the Colombian state and started focusing on their political wing. They didn't just quit. Typo fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 11:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:If another wave of mass murder is perpetrated against leftists, then they'll remobilize. A dialogue with FARC Comandante PK: "OK, here's the deal. We come down from the mountains and out of the jungle, abandon the entrenched positions we've held for decades, and give up our weapons. No longer will we function as a state within a state and control massive amounts of territory within Colombia. Naturally, that means we'll also have to give up all of our sources of revenue. We can't very well tax citizens in areas we don't control, now can we? Also, I haven't read the fine print, but it was hinted at in the peace talks that the government would prefer if we stopped facilitating the narcotics trade and kidnapping people. From now on, our struggle is at the ballot box. Viva la revolución!" "Comandante, what will we do if they start massacring us, same as last time? " "Oh, then we'll just start another armed rebellion, easy-peasy." With reds like some SA posters, who needs whites? Typo posted:Otherwise revolutionary socialism has always mired itself in perpetual war I don't think they actually sell cocaine themselves. Officially, it's against their ideology, and they're certainly not living like kingpins off the revenue. But a lot of the rural areas they control have peasants raising coca and marijuana as cash crops, and class war means a lot more to them than the drug war, so they tax production and charge protection money for those in the drug trade who operate in their territory. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Aug 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Typo posted:This is only true in the sense that there's an endpoint where revolutionary socialism loses I guess all the communist parties that exist in almost every country on the planet don't count then. Especially not the party this thread is about, since they're not waging urban guerilla warfare like a 21st Century SLA. quote:They did quit and it's because the Colombians won a decisive military victory against them since the late 90s and the military balance of power has firmly tipped against them, otherwise their leaders would still sitting in the jungle be selling cocaine for $$$. W/o an armed wing and cocaine $$$ their relevance to Columbian politics drops correspondingly. Yes, a balance that was tipped by decades of American counter-insurgency advisory, and billions in US military aid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia#Financing It's not even a one-sided end to the conflict, since the government is promising massive concessions to the countryside. The political wing of the FARC will be very relevant to Colombian politics if they can achieve the same kind of electoral victories the Patriotic Union achieved in the 80s. Jack of Hearts posted:With reds like some SA posters, who needs whites? It's a good thing then that the success of this peace deal doesn't depend on the opinions of dumbass SA posters. Besides, the demobilization process is ongoing, and there's no guarantee that the peace deal will even be ratified in the plebiscite. http://colombiareports.com/2nd-poll-confirms-majority-colombia-opposes-peace-deal-farc/ One almost gets the impression that you two would be more than satisfied with another wave of reactionary murder.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:The political wing of the FARC will be very relevant to Colombian politics if they can achieve the same kind of electoral victories the Patriotic Union achieved in the 80s. You mean, the electoral victories won at the high water mark for leftism in Colombian history, which haven't even been distantly approached in a generation? Look up the current composition of the Colombian congress, and explain why you think that a hard left party has a chance of gaining even a fraction of the support that the UP had. Even supposing that it did, what exactly would stand in the way of the oligarchic reactionary elites from suppressing (i.e., murdering) them the same way they did the UP and M19 the last time around? And what recourse would be left to them, once they permit themselves to be disarmed and their state within the state to be disassembled? Abandoning the armed struggle is absolutely a last resort for the FARC, I don't understand why you're trying to spin this some other way. Pener Kropoopkin posted:One almost gets the impression that you two would be more than satisfied with another wave of reactionary murder. One almost gets that impression because one is an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 09:39
|
|
|
Did we talk about how Cuba has won a massive concession from the US yet?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Good post HE, a lot of your heretofore baffling reasoning makes more sense now. i ask you genuinely: what would posting a list of approved bad things by your old pal homework explainer accomplish. i can, it just doesn't seem like it'd have much of a purpose. Jack of Hearts posted:This is Fox News reasoning. "The MSM's liberal propaganda justifies our conservative propaganda." socialism vs. capitalism isn't the same battleground as liberalism vs. conservatism, not by a long shot, and to analogize it as such is odd. liberals and conservatives (or left-liberals and right-liberals) agree on many fundamental principles of governance and economics. socialists, communists, leftists, what have you, obviously do not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Abandoning the armed struggle is absolutely a last resort for the FARC, I don't understand why you're trying to spin this some other way. Yeah, dipshit. Because the claim being made here is that communism is a "dead ideology" because the FARC is giving up armed struggle. It's idiotic for a whole number of reasons, the primary one being that the political resistance of the FARC continues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:i ask you genuinely: what would posting a list of approved bad things by your old pal homework explainer accomplish. i can, it just doesn't seem like it'd have much of a purpose. Just as a general rule, when making an argument, one ought to anticipate the counterarguments one is likely to see, acknowledge them, and address them somehow. It makes the argument stronger, not weaker. Your posting reads like literal propaganda, i.e., one gets the impression that you seek simply to propagate your faith, rather than engage in any sort of honest dialogue. This renders everything you say basically weightless; there's no power behind your punches. Everyone who knew anything at all about the history of the Cold War laughed out loud at your comparative lists of imperialist interventions in the other thread. A little intellectual honesty would go a long way toward your evangelical cause. e: "I believe we can build a new socialism in which we learn from both the successes and mistakes of the past" is a fine sentiment and maybe even a project I can get behind. When paired with "also, I refuse to acknowledge any of said mistakes, except if I can blame them on the US or revisionists," my eyes roll right out of my head. Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Aug 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I guess all the communist parties that exist in almost every country on the planet don't count then. Especially not the party this thread is about, since they're not waging urban guerilla warfare like a 21st Century SLA. And before that, yes, it was a perpetual war. quote:Yes, a balance that was tipped by decades of American counter-insurgency advisory, and billions in US military aid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Colombia#Financing
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:
There hasn't being a real difference between reform socialists and progressive liberals for 50 years
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Why are people talking about fark? Thats a terrible web sight
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 20:49
|
|
|
Typo posted:Almost every Communist party in almost every country (there's like a couple of exceptions but still) have given up on revolutions since the 1980s. It's fascinating how far the goal posts were moved from "communism isn't a dead ideology in the Global South" to, "oh yeah? Well FARC is giving up their war with the Colombian state, so what about that?" As if communism isn't real if there's not an active militant insurgency. And anyway, going by your own standard there are two notable exceptions I can think of, which were the successful Maoist insurgency in Nepal - which has led a leftist government in Parliament ever since, and the ongoing Naxalite insurgency in India. The Indian communist parties are also organizing a general strike planned for September, which is expected to have 150 million participants.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Typo posted:There hasn't being a real difference between reform socialists and progressive liberals for 50 years One is strictly anti-union. Only idiots can't tell the difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:One is strictly anti-union. Only idiots can't tell the difference. Based on the China discussion earlier I'm not sure if only one is
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Based on the China discussion earlier I'm not sure if only one is Elaborate
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:One is strictly anti-union. Only idiots can't tell the difference. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are not anti-union
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
Typo posted:Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are not anti-union Both of them are New-New Deal styled Democrats, and FDR had no qualms about destroying the labour movement's greatest weapon: going on strikes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Both of them are New-New Deal styled Democrats, and FDR had no qualms about destroying the labour movement's greatest weapon: going on strikes. 1. FDR opposed strike actions. 2. Sanders and Warren have politics similar to FDR. 3. Therefore, Sanders and Warren oppose strikes and can be fairly called "anti-union." Hm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Both of them are New-New Deal styled Democrats, and FDR had no qualms about destroying the labour movement's greatest weapon: going on strikes. http://fortune.com/2016/04/13/verizon-ceo-fires-back-after-sanders-sides-with-strikers/
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 13:37
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's fascinating how far the goal posts were moved from "communism isn't a dead ideology in the Global South" to, "oh yeah? Well FARC is giving up their war with the Colombian state, so what about that?" As if communism isn't real if there's not an active militant insurgency. And Cuba! Why does everyone forget about Cuba?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Both of them are New-New Deal styled Democrats, and FDR had no qualms about destroying the labour movement's greatest weapon: going on strikes. So do Communists of various eras (once they were in power) so maybe people just don't like strikes in general.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
i'd wager most socialists in the US would be happy, or at least not angry, if we got FDR's second bill of rights
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 14:29
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:And Cuba! Why does everyone forget about Cuba?! laos and kerala also R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Aug 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:59 |
|
|
Is Kerala the one that ships their workers to various gulf states as slave labor
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2016 18:36
|
|