Jump to content

The link could not be embedded because twitter.com does not allow embedding of that tweet.


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

oh, cultural marxist then.  a new term made up by the fascist losers.  please link a definition.  you self written one will surely be indecipherable.

 

Joe, she real mad tonight. She keeps getting more and more desperate and pathetic. Poor thing.  

 

Keep in mind - she could post this crap ATOP but she doesn't get the same high in a circle jerk with @deranged rhino, @Foxx, @Buffalo_Gal, etc.

 

She gets her validation here... just like this:

 

giphy.gif

 

 

 

 

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

yes, communism doesn't exist in a capitalistic society.  they are mutually exclusive ideologies.  oligarchs, yes.  capitalists running things, no.  and they are, right here, right now in the good ol USA...

 

pls explain your statement.  seems like you're more aligned w Marx than you know:

 

Karl Marx, the 19th century father of communism, was outraged by the growing gap between rich and poor. He saw capitalism as an outmoded economic system that exploited workers, which would eventually rise against the rich because the poor were so unfairly treated. Marx thought that the economic system of communism would replace capitalism. Communism is based on principles meant to correct the problems caused by capitalism.

 

https://www.ushistory.org/gov/13b.asp


Again, we’re not speaking the same language. You are under the mistaken impression that communism is some kind of economic theory. Even if Marx really proposed it as such, which I do not concede, it has never existed as such. 

  • Disagree 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LeviF said:


Again, we’re not speaking the same language. You are under the mistaken impression that communism is some kind of economic theory. Even if Marx really proposed it as such, which I do not concede, it has never existed as such. 

of course you don't concede it.  it destroys your argument.  here's another link establishing my point.  now you.  have you read Marx?

 

His key theories were a critique of capitalism and its shortcomings. Marx thought that the capitalistic system would inevitably destroy itself. The oppressed workers would become alienated and ultimately overthrow the owners to take control of the means of production themselves, ushering in a classless society.

 

Karl Marx: His Books, Theories, and Impact - Investopedia

 

Marx could still be correct, through dummies like you and NC who think the grass is greener on some other side.  Good luck with that...

Edited by Joe Ferguson forever
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:

of course you don't concede it.  it destroys your argument.  here's another link establishing my point.  now you.  have you read Marx?

 

His key theories were a critique of capitalism and its shortcomings. Marx thought that the capitalistic system would inevitably destroy itself. The oppressed workers would become alienated and ultimately overthrow the owners to take control of the means of production themselves, ushering in a classless society.

 

Karl Marx: His Books, Theories, and Impact - Investopedia


Yeah. Like, the original writings. And not just the manifesto and Das Kapital.  Give it a try. There’s a reason why Leninism is well within the confines of Marxism. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LeviF said:


Yeah. Like, the original writings. And not just the manifesto and Das Kapital.  Give it a try. There’s a reason why Leninism is well within the confines of Marxism. 

i read them too.  along with plato, aristotle, neitsche, hobbes etc.  Marx actually seemed reasonable in that oppressed people will revolt.  i don't think working class Americans are oppressed however and will fold like cheap suits when it comes to actual revolution.  I'm sure you want to prove me wrong...

  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, L Ron Burgundy said:

Apartheid Clyde doesn't want free speech.  Just the freedom to push conspiracy and lies that he likes.

Freedom of speech doesn't protect what we agree with, it protects what we don't agree with.

 

And if a liar, everyone sees the evidence that person is a liar, and they then have no integrity. that's on them.  and similar to the farm in here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
×
×
  • Create New...