Join the new world

pertamaxxx

How many capitalists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

Many? Product obsolescence is their invention afterall.

none. the workers do all the work

So true, haha!

Cringe...

Socialism > 'They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work'

That’s the definition of capitalism

It was coined by workers in 'Soviet union' in the 70`s... #zeroselfawareness

The Soviet Union in the 70s wasn’t “socialist”
#toolwithnoclue

[removed]

Tell me how stupid you are without telling me how stupid you are...

- Read this carefully, word by word :

Soviet union or officially USSR ( Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics ) was SOCIALIST state from 1922 - 1991, and up until then it was governed by one-party dictatorship/regime known as Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Also, Russian Soviet Republic was first to be established after Bolshevik revolution in 1917, and it was, wait for it...the world's first constitutionally guaranteed SOCIALIST state.

Yeah, i know you wanna backtrack now, but it`s too late. You, like so many brainwashed lunatics in the USA, have no clue what you want, or what it is, or what are you 'fighting' for, or what that means, at all. Street thugs, 'revollutionaries', degenerates, looters, killers, pedo`s, you name it. Just a reminder, revolution always eats it`s own children, all across the world, in every country where it started, without error, and it is happening again, with same or worse violence and destruction and same outcomes.

That would be all.

LOOOOOOL, I've never heard so much clownish nonsense in my life. Utter rubbish. And you're the one calling someone else brainwashed. I was going to let it slide, but your arrogance is matched only by your sheer ignorance, so now I have to set you straight. I shouldn't even be bothering with know nothings like you who think you understand but when you open your mouth everyone can see your lack of knowledge, so I'll try to explain it so that even you can understand.

First of all, anybody who has bothered to read any advanced socio-economic peer revieved analysis of the Soviet Union KNOWS that it is classified as STATE CAPITALISM. That's right noob, you don't even know what that term means, do you? That's because the definition you are using is coming from some 1980s high school textbook or whatever you are using in your gold bricking rathole place. It's 2021 son, not 1991, try reading a real book for once, then we can talk huh? Given that your writing is incoherent that might be a challenge for you though.

Secondly, I'm not surprised you assume I'm from the US. Then again, you assume that just because a country has the word "socialist" in it's name, you should just accept that this is true at face value. It shows your exceedingly low level of scholarship. Heck, I know twelve year olds who have a higher grasp of economic theory than you do. But go ahead and make more assumptions about the "revolution". In fact, you should be at every single defund the police rally that you can. After all, you don't want your daddy's tax dollars to pay for someone else's bloated salaries, do you kid? I mean, only a "socialist" would want that.

mic drop

@pimpdollars : i wasnt going to reply to your original argument, but when i saw you throwing names and insults towards watan, simply because he claimed that the USSR was a socialist country (it was), and because it was operating on a failed system (it did), its really bad for you to behave like that, just because someone disagrees with you on something.

ofcourse watan called you stupid, and that was uncalled for, but still, you should walk the high road, be the bigger person, etc etc...

now, onto your wrong arguments :

1) the USSR, or soviet union for short, was a socialist state, and an other name for socialism at the time, was communism.
(both communism and socialism means that its a ''social'' political system, or one that is focusing on the needs of society, as opposed to traditional capitalism, that ignores the needs of society, and serves the interests of the rich few who run the business/companies...)

2) regardless of what other may have classified soviet union as, it was always a communist/socialist state.
its regime was one-party communism, or state rule by the supreme secretary of the party.
as such, it was a totalitarian regime, that didnt allowed different political parties (not even different left-wing parties, at that!), it wasnt acting democratically in the political spectrum, and it gave full power only to the party's offficials and to the party's secretary ofcourse, who had the absolute and unrestricted power in this vast nation.

now if some american/european bookworm classified the soviet union's regime as ''state capitalism'', while it is run by the state (state power=the 1 party's power), it isnt a capitalist in the slightest, as it didnt have an open market, it didnt had any trading openings with other, non-communist countries, and it was isolated, badly managed and without any economic growth, at least compared to other, capitalist or differently managed countries.

3) the communist model of the USSR, of the eastern bloc and of east germany failed so hard, that once the berlin wall fell and the entirety of the eastern bloc collapsed (i.e.=got liberated), the soviet union got severely weakened, and when the hardlined communists tried to do an illegal coup attempt VS the state, it degraded the union even further, thus pushing for the eventual collapse of the soviet union, and the rise of an open, stronger russian federation.

4) after the collapse of the communist regimes worldwide, most post-soviet nations of the eastern bloc hated communism so much, that they went all the way into the right-wing politics and they embraced tradition, conservative views and different paths in society and economy alike.
and despite me not liking right-wing politics, i can see why most post-soviet (eastern bloc) nations chose the path in such ways : because communism was forced upon them, and they didnt have a choice on how to run their own countries, as stalin and the USSR dictated what they should do, and what not to do... (being vassal states to the USSR, tbh)

5) a few exceptions to the horrible communist states of the eastern bloc and of russia did exist, such as czechoslovakia, which had a good socialist state between 1900-1939, and who after the WWII got trapped into a stalin-approved soviet rule, but at least had a slightly more free form of governing their nation, and as such, it was a good state/rule in most aspects, including the end, where the peaceful protest of its people was answered with a polite send off, as opposed to other eastern block nations where protests were met with brutal, lethal force by the state.

other exceptions of relatively good far-left wing nation could be cuba too, but thats a different case and a story for an other time.

@pimpdollars :

-part 2 of my arguments about communism and some of your faulty arguments.

north korea might have started as a stalin-approved, controlled soviet nation, but after stalins death, it evolved into a totalitarian state that was ruled only by the kim family, and as such, it was no longer a communist nation, but a dictatorship-ruled nation.

china, is a different case too : it started as a communist state, ruled in a stalinist way down to a T, (exactly like a stalinist state, because mao ze dong admired stalins regime and way of governing its people so much, that he imitated almost all the aspects of his regime, including that of a cult of personality, which he cultivated and perpetuated...)

similarly to stalin, mao ruled china harshly, there were 0 political or social freedoms, many people were executed, others were sent to exile or to mass prisons (similar to russia's gulags), there was forced labor for everyone, punishments, and famine,
and things were generally awful in there.

and until the de-stalinization of the soviet union, the USSR-chian relations were excellent.

but after that? things went bad between them.
you see, in the 1954 period with chroutsefs rule and his new rise in power as the new secretary of the USSR after stalins death, thats when the de-stalinization of the soviet union happened and some basic freedoms (few) were given to its people.

sadly, mao hated seeing this change of route in the USSR, and this created a rift, which eventually became a major breakaway point between USSR-china, to the point that they became rivals and hostile to eachother.

amongst mao's many crimes, was the so called ''cultural revolution'', where they destroyed countless of priceless historical artifacts of china, from confucius texts, to buddha statues, to old temples, to libraries, to musical instruments, to anything artistic or creative that you can imagine.
and many people were sent to prison camps, while others got executed en masse, for the stupidest of reasons : for defending pieces of chinas old history.

after mao finally died, china got its new leader in mr xiaoping, who was more progressive and more open to necessary reforms for china than his predecessor ever was,
and as such, xiaoping did some good progress in making china a more open nation (economically), and after some years, china's next leaders eventually made a semi-open market, where there are some (few) freedoms for its people and some (small) allowances in social stuff.

but other than that?
its a failed state, and a failing, totalitarian regime.
and if it succeeds in anything, is because of the reforms that happened in the xiaoping era and later, and not due to its rotten beginnings with mao.

so, communism failed again.

(a comparison between communist china (mainland china) and the republic of china (taiwan) is an easy way to see why communism is bad, while a more open, free political+social system is much better than a totalitarian regime)

anyway, thats all for now.
i wont throw any insults at you, so dont throw insults to me.
have a nice day.

@ kris joedanicus: sigh.......99% of what you are saying is echo chamber talking point nonsense but I will respond when I have more time

1. Your problem began and still remains, including last response, because you have failed to acknowledge that Soviet union/USSR was Socialist/Communist dystopian nightmare and a failed state, from start to the bitter end. You have sorted yourself in a 'that wasn`t real socialism/communism' camp of people. The same camp that thinks that, roughly, 250 million dead people later, directly/indirectly, just in the last 100+ years, pursuing that agenda, isn`t enough and that world should still pursue 'Socialist utopia' or 'worker`s paradise'. That alone speak volumes and for the most part, it`s your fault, with so much resources out there, it could be a case of intellectual laziness to seek the truth or it just might be that you`re ideologically driven which is fair to assume
at this point.

2. First part of your last 'reponse' shows that you were in a classic state of anguish, and that you couldn`t control yourself even if you tried, very childish, nonetheless, it was very fun to see that.

3. Arguing that it must be a 'state capitalism' since some analysis said so is laughable. It could mean many things, some of them could be that they haven`t even bothered to do a proper analysis, and that they simply took word for word what F. Engels said in 1880`s, that 'state ownership' is 'state capitalism' and that if pushed to it`s extreme, becomes it`s opposite (!?), further adding this pile of crap, 'state ownership' of production is not the solution, but within itself contains key to the solution!? Now, entire century or so later, it`s still a mystery how so many people have taken this garbage seriously. He wasn`t the only one spewing gibberish like that, oh no, it was entire branch of brain
dead 'left', socialists, anarchists, marxists etc. They`ve said a lot of sh*t, as they were unable to properly express what is what, for example, it didn`t occur to them that perhaps 'statism' is better term to put in use to describe state dealing with socio-economic policies in regards to taxation and means of production. Of course, why you, either intentionally or being clueless, haven`t mentioned is that there is such a thing known as 'state socialism', meaning exactly as it is called, state ownership of means of production and resource allocation in order to achive socialist revolution under single-
party state/dictatorship, which is important and crucial to notice.

4. With 'it`s 2021' remark, you`re the embodiment of 'it`s the current year' meme or long lost brother of a guy that uses that to derail argument by making someone seem primitive, his name is John Oliver, the retard. Do you think that because something was written 20 or 120 years ago makes it invalid and less true and because 'it`s the current year' it needs an update because? I think i might have a clue where does that train of thought comes from, and that is that everything is in a state of continual progress, theory of evolution perhaps? Did it crossed your mind that things can deteriorate over time? It could be anything actually, ideas, objects, people, relationships etc. Were you able to follow what i wrote so far? Or all of this is owerwhelming for you...

5. I haven`t took it at face value, as shown above, but do you think that 'just because' it`s called satanic cult, it doesn`t mean they worship satan, right? As for the defund the police and being 'socialist', i shouldn`t even bother, but i will as it baffles me how silly that claim of yours is and how much you`re limited overall. Did you know that police as source of protecting the law and order around any form of community etc. exhists since the ancient times all across the world? Subjects, volunteers and appointed ones were not always paid, the payment wasn`t always from taxation but from local rulers wealth obtained via trading etc. Was ancient Egypt 'socialist' for having taxation? 'WE WUZ SOCIALISTS AND SH*T!'. For socialists/communists of every kind, time itself begins with
them as there was nothing before them, how could it be, they`re re-inventing the wheel, divinding people into 'oppressed' & 'oppressors', 'haves' & 'have nots', pursuing paradoxical equality/equity, so let`s punish successful people for stealing from me something i never had, regardless that it`s the envy driving my cause. But the corpses keep piling up in that struggle. Of course it does, since only time people are equal is when they`re dead...

@pimpdollars : considering that you didnt even bother to reply back and/or to analyze upon my previous posts valid points, shows more things about you than me.
when people like me present you with solid evidence,
instead of discussing things, you ignore them, hoping that they will go away...
(a cowards behaviour, if i may say so)

also, judging by your passionate/angry/insulting replies towards mr watan, i can tell that you are a huge supporter of communism/socialism, a system that has failed repeatedly across the world, and in many instances,

a communist nation was/is a nation where it has an 1 party state (practically a dictatorship without any political or social freedoms), ruling the entire nations political+social life, and where all of its citizens are equal not in rights, but they are equal in being poor, unpriviledged and in famine.
equality in poverty, equality in misery.

thats not a utopia, thats a living hell. (and most people who lived in such nations such as the soviet union/USSR, or in countries of the eastern bloc, they said that they've have suffered alot by persecutions, hunger, and by being sent off into labour camps, such as the gulags in USSR, in russia's case.)

its OK to have some personal beliefs, but when your judgement or your perception of reality is damaged by your dellusions, it becomes dangerous.

every nation that used the tactics/system of the USSR/of the eastern bloc nations that were run by the USSR, every one of them failed miserably, and its people suffered, until their eventual liberation, with the collapse of the soviet union.

any far-left/ far-right system is rooted in the absolute extremes and in injustice, and as such, they are cruel systems that oppress a nations citizens.

a citizen needs to be able to think/speak freely, to live freely, and to be able to vote on whatever party they want to support.
thats democracy and thats how freedom works.

and freedom is one of the most important things in the world.

so, calm down, and either discuss with people politely, or keep hiding behind sarcastic replies and not replying back to the actual topics at hand...

lastly, my name's ''chris jonadicus''. try to say it right next time, its not that hard... 🙂
cheers

MUDO

Not sure if this is trolling or artificial drama 😃

is there really a difference between them? I mean at the end of the day they both cause issues and people respond to them

Maybe the effect is very similar, but I would define them differently. Trolling wants to make others mad, while drama can cause other emotions, sadness, catharsis, compassion, you name it.

Not trolling 😃DDDDDDDDDDDD!2

The more absurd the proposal, the more I like it 😉

Your actions are unacceptable.

Oh really? Report me to the admins, so I get banned, then 😉

Excuse me, but you are a bad gamer.

@archangel : considering that you and your party (the last samurai party) took over the goverment and established a harmful dictatorship for the nation, i wouldnt call you a good player either...

at least mr Hakutaku liberated e=japan from your party's dictatorship, and he is still trying to help this e-nation as much as he can...

what did you do for e-japan?
...exactly.

A matter of perspective. I could say the same about you.

with the difference being that he made some good things for e-japan, while you worked against it...

thats a good suggestion, and a 1000 minimum wage for e-japan would be great, but im afraid that the economy would possibly collapse due to a big paying/selling price gap in e-japans market...

perhaps a minimum wage of 300 CC's would be a more viable goal, both for workers and for employers in e-japan...

good article tho, it provides food for thought!