Maddi_Matsu
Well-Known Member
Betsy Devos cutting the funds for multiple education programs does not help either.
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Political
- Thread starter WhoTfIsWesday
- Start date
Maddi_Matsu
Well-Known Member
SIR you are just mad that you are only landed one hit out of 10 when you couldn’t use your words any longer.MrPoopersPenguin said:Maddi_Matsu said:You know, SIR, implying that we cannot read or write is THE same thing as calling us stupid. I AM [j]ust saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I fixed it for you.
renamed34360
Active Member
Maddi_Matsu said:Betsy Devos cutting the funds for multiple education programs does not help either.
The money was not going to be used productively anyway. If the money was only going to go toward producing mediocre students, it is better not to spend the money.
Government-ran education has failed in the United States. It needs to be replaced by a more traditional system.
(I will give a nice gift to the person who figures out my political ideology. However, he must be spot on.)
renamed34360
Active Member
Maddi_Matsu said:SIR you are just mad that you are only landed one hit out of 10 when you couldn’t use your words any longer.MrPoopersPenguin said:Maddi_Matsu said:You know, SIR, implying that we cannot read or write is THE same thing as calling us stupid. I AM [j]ust saying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I fixed it for you.
No. I just did that for fun. I will gladly continue to spar with you on this thread.
Maddi_Matsu
Well-Known Member
What is the point of arguing oh no sorry SpArInG with someone who fail hits for fun?
renamed34360
Active Member
Maddi_Matsu said:What is the point of arguing oh no sorry SpArInG with someone who fail hits for fun?
That is a question only you can answer.
Muschi said:Next Week On "I Don't Read Theory"Gandalf said:That's interesting. Socialist, but not a communist.Muschi said:okay but marxism-leninism is still different from just marxism. ? and stalinism is diffferent from marxism-leninism. that's why they're called differently. i'm sure there are many precautions to take to ensure corruption and greed does not overtake. but yeah i personally don't like communism regardless. i'm a socialist
But, don't you think if there is socialism, like the state owns absolutely everything, it will eventually lead to communism? Isn't that what's Marx's theory all about?
I thought theory without application is dumb and application without theory is blind.. ?
MrPoopersPenguin said:Muschi said:okay but marxism-leninism is still different from just marxism. ? and stalinism is diffferent from marxism-leninism. that's why they're called differently. i'm sure there are many precautions to take to ensure corruption and greed does not overtake. but yeah i personally don't like communism regardless. i'm a socialistMrPoopersPenguin said:Also, as someone with historical training with an over-emphasis on Russian and Soviet history, Stalinism was an inevitable result of Marxism-Leninism as implemented in the Soviet Union after the fall of the Provisional Government.
Not talking about Communism’s pros and cons. Not defending Capitalism. Simply stating an historical fact.
If you disagree, fine. However, you are wrong.
Firstly, I never said anything about pure Marxism. I referred to Marxism-Leninism. Secondly, Stalinism was the inevitable outgrowth of Marxism-Leninism. They are not the same, just as a parent is not the same as his child.
FYI, one Adolf Hitler claimed himself to be a socialist. Doesn't really make him one though..js.
You might like to read george orwell's animal farm. It's a pretty good estimation of everything that went wrong with the communist movement in the soviet....in china, cuba, venezuella...almost every other state that ever claimed itself to be socialist
renamed34360
Active Member
@Gandalf
Firstly, I have read Animal Farm. Although Lenin did not intend for the horrors of Stalinism to occur, the Soviet System, as set up by the Bolsheviks, would have inevitably lead to Stalin or someone just like him. I even initially noted that this was not a statement concerning the pros and cons of Communism; it is a statement referring specifically to the Soviet state and the variant of Marxism held by its founders. Also, Animal Farm is not entirely accurate in its portrayal of the early Soviet period. If you want to know what actually happened, look at primary sources and the works of historians trained in Russian and Soviet history.
Secondly, Fascism adopts certain elements of Socialism. However, it is a collective socialism (that is why in Germany it was called National Socialism) rather than the traditional individual socialism. Fascism’s preferred economic system, corporatism, is derived from certain aspects of socialism. Adolf Hitler was a socialist, but he was not the typical type of socialist. Just as Stalin was a communist, but he was not the typical type of communist. All ideologies have their fringes, crazy people, and evil people.
Firstly, I have read Animal Farm. Although Lenin did not intend for the horrors of Stalinism to occur, the Soviet System, as set up by the Bolsheviks, would have inevitably lead to Stalin or someone just like him. I even initially noted that this was not a statement concerning the pros and cons of Communism; it is a statement referring specifically to the Soviet state and the variant of Marxism held by its founders. Also, Animal Farm is not entirely accurate in its portrayal of the early Soviet period. If you want to know what actually happened, look at primary sources and the works of historians trained in Russian and Soviet history.
Secondly, Fascism adopts certain elements of Socialism. However, it is a collective socialism (that is why in Germany it was called National Socialism) rather than the traditional individual socialism. Fascism’s preferred economic system, corporatism, is derived from certain aspects of socialism. Adolf Hitler was a socialist, but he was not the typical type of socialist. Just as Stalin was a communist, but he was not the typical type of communist. All ideologies have their fringes, crazy people, and evil people.
renamed34360
Active Member
Gandalf said:Makes no sense, but apparently the german leader from ww2 is censored here in forum ?
I agree that it makes no sense.
WhoTfIsWesday
Well-Known Member
O yeah i don't like that assumption either tbh.kisi said:Wednesday said:Automatically think what about poc? Or do u just not like the termkisi said:I hate conservatives ? I also hate how people automatically think POC
Oh the other portion didn’t post , but that POC & Latin Americans are liberal
MrPoopersPenguin said:@Gandalf
Firstly, I have read Animal Farm. Although Lenin did not intend for the horrors of Stalinism to occur, the Soviet System, as set up by the Bolsheviks, would have inevitably lead to Stalin or someone just like him. I even initially noted that this was not a statement concerning the pros and cons of Communism; it is a statement referring specifically to the Soviet state and the variant of Marxism held by its founders. Also, Animal Farm is not entirely accurate in its portrayal of the early Soviet period. If you want to know what actually happened, look at primary sources and the works of historians trained in Russian and Soviet history.
Secondly, Fascism adopts certain elements of Socialism. However, it is a collective socialism (that is why in Germany it was called National Socialism) rather than the traditional individual socialism. Fascism’s preferred economic system, corporatism, is derived from certain aspects of socialism. ******* ******** was a socialist, but he was not the typical type of socialist. Just as Stalin was a communist, but he was not the typical type of communist. All ideologies have their fringes, crazy people, and evil people.
That is the thing though. From a purely socio-economic point of view, capitalism, socialism and communism are points on the same graph line. Economic saturation in capitalism leads to socialism, saturation in socialism ends in communism. Both can't coexist at the same point of time. Early 20th century russia was just evolving from a feudal economy to a capitalist one, with all the industrial revolution, advancement in communicatiom and science, growth in business and commerce, capitalism was starting to flourish. The october revolution, and the subsequent soviet union disrupted this change for a while, but as we know it, the economy gradually righted itself, and today's russia enjoys a proper capitalist socio-economic system. Same happened for china. Same is happening for cuba and venezuella. The people who claim themselves to be communists, like the lenins and trotskeys are simply deluded, since you cannot be a communist, even a socialist before a capitalist economy has fully flourished. Like, how can you be a socialist in an economy that allows private property? If you're in a capitalist economy, you're surely getting financially exploited and in tern, you're also financially exploiting someone. You can't live outside the system, can you?
About mr. Stalin, he was pretty similar to the german guy. Both played the nationalist card. They were allies to start with afterall...so i don't think you can really discount the science of communism based on their actions or call them to be the inevitable product of communism.
Shadowfall
Well-Known Member
I've read a lot of GK Chesterton, some decent reads, poems and humor were easier to read compared to his serious stuff. It's just a ton of generalizations packed into religious brain washing, imo, but that's just an opinion.
i never claimed you said anything about marxism because i was talking about marxism vs stalinism and you started bringing up marxism-leninism. and i didn't refute your point about stalinism growing out of marxism-leninism, just said they are not the same thing. you're here in this thread throwing a tantrum over people not having reading comprehension, but it seems like you can't practice what you preach either.MrPoopersPenguin said:Firstly, I never said anything about pure Marxism. I referred to Marxism-Leninism. Secondly, Stalinism was the inevitable outgrowth of Marxism-Leninism. They are not the same, just as a parent is not the same as his child.Muschi said:okay but marxism-leninism is still different from just marxism. ? and stalinism is diffferent from marxism-leninism. that's why they're called differently. i'm sure there are many precautions to take to ensure corruption and greed does not overtake. but yeah i personally don't like communism regardless. i'm a socialistMrPoopersPenguin said:Also, as someone with historical training with an over-emphasis on Russian and Soviet history, Stalinism was an inevitable result of Marxism-Leninism as implemented in the Soviet Union after the fall of the Provisional Government.
Not talking about Communism’s pros and cons. Not defending Capitalism. Simply stating an historical fact.
If you disagree, fine. However, you are wrong.
you need to actually read the theory before you can start critiquing the application. you clearly haven't read any theory because you're being blatantly incorrect, and yet think you are in proper knowledge to start critiquing the application of what was theorized. i was just pointing out that what you were saying was something that you obviously either pulled out of your ass or were echoing the rhetoric of someone who had done the same.Gandalf said:I thought theory without application is dumb and application without theory is blind.. ?
MrPoopersPenguin said:Maddi_Matsu said:Betsy Devos cutting the funds for multiple education programs does not help either.
The money was not going to be used productively anyway. If the money was only going to go toward producing mediocre students, it is better not to spend the money.
Government-ran education has failed in the United States. It needs to be replaced by a more traditional system.
(I will give a nice gift to the person who figures out my political ideology. However, he must be spot on.)
Liberation is my guess. And I agree with you. Government funded education was sold to the voters as a means of educating people to read, write, and do simple math in order to hold down an entry level job. We aren't all super geniuses, we really don't need to waste tax money giving kids education they aren't gonna use. And for those who are super geniuses, grants and scholarships exist to private schools.
I used to be a Conservative Democrat. I'm more of an independent now.
✓Pro-capitalism
✓Anti-abortion
√Pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration
✓Pro-2A
✓Pro-labor unions
√Pro-welfare but with major revisions necessary
✓Pro-social security
And I don't hate people who disagree with me, I think they're misguided.
WhoTfIsWesday
Well-Known Member
What is 2A? @ julie
2nd Amendment. The right to bear armsWednesday said:What is 2A? @ julie
Muschi said:you need to actually read the theory before you can start critiquing the application. you clearly haven't read any theory because you're being blatantly incorrect, and yet think you are in proper knowledge to start critiquing the application of what was theorized. i was just pointing out that what you were saying was something that you obviously either pulled out of your ass or were echoing the rhetoric of someone who had done the same.Gandalf said:I thought theory without application is dumb and application without theory is blind.. ?
Err..why so triggered? Everyone has their own opinions, I have mine too. But I've never claimed all my opinion is correct, because, statistically that's impossible. Nobody can be right in everything.
I am open minded enough to let you change my opinion on something, if you can prove me wrong categorically. Just stating that I am wrong, and using personal attacks, doesn't quite cut it, i guess...but, then again, people have their own opinion. Maybe in your opinion this is the best way of having a constructive debate ?