#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Is Progressivism a religion?
Yes
Side Score: 62
|
No
Side Score: 47
|
|
Capitalism is a religion. It has all the traditional markers associated with religion: myth-building, false gods, pointless ceremony and operates on the same "do as I say not as I do" principle. Socialism is a religion. It has all the traditional markers associated with religion: myth-building, false gods, pointless ceremony and operates on the same "do as I say not as I do" principle. Side: No
Not really. Technically perhaps, but given that it is the antidote to capitalism, one could probably state it is a religion in the same way that atheism is a religion. Capitalism not really.Technically perhaps, but given that it is the antidote to Socialism one could probably state it is a religion in the same way that atheism is a religion. Side: No
0
points
Progressivism is more like a cult. In the same manner as Jim Jones, the Progressive Left has brainwashed it's followers to believe that men (who have disorders, and think they are women) should be treated as normal, and allowed to play in women's sports. This cult wants to force every school to allow boys who think they are girls into our daughter's bathrooms. They have brainwashed their followers to believe it is ok to kill viable babies for any reason. They have brainwashed you to deny the science of Biology, deny the natural design of our bodies, and believe that two men having sex is a natural normal sexual orientation. Who else could believe such lunacy unless they were brainwashed into this Progressive cult? This cult has the bully pulpit of Liberal media, constantly chanting the Progressive mantra to it's low end masses. They bribe them with free stuff while conditioning their minds to Political Correctness. They want their followers to ignore the great economy, the record low unemployment, the dismantling of ISIS, the wage increases, our new independence from foreign oil producing nations, etc. etc. They say ignore all this good stuff and HATE TRUMP! HATE TRUMP! HATE TRUMP! Chant it over and over until you actually believe it. Just know that there are groups who can help you with your deprogramming. Don't drink the cool-aide! Side: Yes
|
1
point
Progressivism isn't it's own ideology. It is, in fact, a subset of several ideologies, all of which originated with Classical British Conservatism. It is not a religion, does not believe in divine enlightenment (though not is it an inherently secular subset), and isn't even a purely left wing thing. Donald Trump has been a strong advocate for a number of progressive issues. The term is being consistently misused to refer to a nonexistent left wing ideology, when in reality the actual term for the ideology in question is Modern Welfare Liberalism, or in some rare instances Social Democratic Theory. Oh, and the left is by no means atheist. Most people on the left are theists of some form. Side: No
Progressivism isn't it's own ideology. Make a note to yourself. Before you bombard people with pseudo-intellectual diatribe in a bizarre effort to con them into thinking your opinion is worth reading, LEARN TO USE YOUR OWN LANGUAGE WITHOUT MAKING MISTAKES BEFITTING OF PRIMARY SCHOOL PUPILS. Side: Yes
1
point
I'm confused. Obviously. Are you angry that I am using the actual, proper terms within political science? Why would you conclude that I'm angry because you don't understand basic English? No wonder you are confused, if these are the thoughts which enter your head. If so, why? We don't put possessive apostrophes in the middle of pronouns, dumbass. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Alright, lesson learned If you had learned your lesson you'd apologise for being deliberately offensive and we could move on. Since you haven't done that we can safely conclude you have learned nothing. You clearly aren't here to actually debate So, to clarify, you have learned the lesson I have just given you about how you are not qualified to tell other people what they think, which must be why you are now doing it again? Am I correct? Why don't you just do yourself a favour and shut your mouth? There's a good lad. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
Can I anticipate a legitimate debate, rather than just generalized declarations of why the left is "evil"? And if so, are there any current topics that strike your fancy in particular? More interested in a legitimate debate rather than a devil's advocate sort of situation. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
The term is being consistently misused to refer to a nonexistent left wing ideology, when in reality the actual term for the ideology in question is Modern Welfare Liberalism, or in some rare instances Social Democratic Theory. Would you say the Democratic Party is being flooded with Marxists and Marxist ideas? Side: Yes
1
point
No. Democrats are not calling for a popular uprising of the working class to democratically seize the means of production. There has been a recent influx in popularity of Social Democratic Theory, however. But that isn't Marxism, any more than Libertarianism is Modern American Conservatism. Side: No
No. Democrats are not calling for a popular uprising of the working class to democratically seize the means of production. That's why I don't vote Democrat. There has been a recent influx in popularity of Social Democratic Theory, however. But that isn't Marxism Read stuff before you open your mouth. Marxism is seeing a huge resurgence:- Why Marxism is on the rise again https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/ And understandably so. The guy is right. Side: Yes
2
points
Nothing in that article pertains to the Democratic Party of the United States. He did not ask if there has been a rise in popularity of Marxism in European countries nor did he ask if there had been a rise in Marxism in general. He specifically asked about a rise pertaining to one political party, and the article you cited doesn't speak to that premise at all. Side: No
Nothing in that article pertains to the Democratic Party of the United States. Wtf? Buddy, nothing about the sentence:- There has been a recent influx in popularity of Social Democratic Theory, however. But that isn't Marxism Makes it clear that you are talking only about Democrats. The topic is about progressives, not Democrats. Learn stuff, dopey. Side: Yes
1
point
The fact that I'm responding directly to the question of it I believe there has been an increase in the democratic party makes that explicitly clear. Do you see how my commented is intended in relation to the position of the comment above? That means it is a response. Side: No
The fact that I'm responding directly to the question of it I believe there has been an increase in the democratic party makes that explicitly clear. If it were explicitly clear then we would not be having this conversation you moron. I do not appreciate it when morons use circular reasoning to reach erroneous conclusions. You most certainly DID NOT make it "explicitly clear" that your implication about Marxism concerned only American Democrats. You used highly generic, non-specific wording. As I have already illustrated several times today already, your intellectual dishonesty is quite lamentable. Side: Yes
1
point
Nothing in that article pertains to the Democratic Party of the United States. He did not ask if there has been a rise in popularity of Marxism in European countries nor did he ask if there had been a rise in Marxism in general. He specifically asked about a rise pertaining to one political party, and the article you cited doesn't speak to that premise at all. Side: No
He did not ask if there has been a rise in popularity of Marxism in European countries nor did he ask if there had been a rise in Marxism in general. Just wtf are you talking about you blathering nitwit? I responded to YOUR post, not "his". I don't even know who "he" is. YOU implied that Marxism was not seeing a return in popularity and I corrected that false implication. Get it? Or do you need a small diagram to assist you? Side: Yes
1
point
I'll give this one shot before: my post was a response to the question of if Marxism had seen an increase specifically within the Democratic Party, asked by brontoraptor. You can go ahead and check the debate thread. I have never claimed that Marxism hasn't seen a general increase in popularity. Responding to my response without knowing what I was responding to seems strange, as it meant you lacked a fundamental understanding of the context, hence your misunderstanding. Side: No
I'll give this one shot before Translation: Yes, I do need a diagram. I will still deny everything even when you hand me said diagram. That is because I am intellectually dishonest. my post was a response to the question of if Marxism had seen an increase specifically within the Democratic Party You will notice that everybody else on the entire website quotes what they are "specifically" responding to in bold letters, you boring liar. You're an idiot. Side: Yes
You can go ahead and check the debate thread. I did that and yes, you were responding to a specific question. But your post was split into two paragraphs, only the first of which mentioned the Democrats. You then began a new paragraph (i.e. changed the subject) and began talking about something else. If you wanted to make it clear that you were talking about Democrats you should have either:- A) Not changed paragraphs. B) Changed this line:- There has been a recent influx in popularity of Social Democratic Theory, however. To:- There has been a recent influx in popularity of Social Democratic Theory in the Democrat Party, however. Capiche? Or do you still need a diagram? Side: Yes
1
point
There is no linguistic rule that changing a paragraph changes the topic. A paragraphical break can simply indicate a change in argument pertaining to the same topic. There is no rational reason to believe my first paragraph was a response to him while the second wasn't. Side: No
There is no linguistic rule that changing a paragraph changes the topic. That is literally the purpose of changing paragraph you moron. To indicate a change of subject. Are you telling me that you do not understand how English works? See:- There are a few standard times to make a new paragraph: When you start in on a new topic When you skip to a new time When you skip to a new place When a new person begins to speak When you want to produce a dramatic effect Side: Yes
1
point
So you honestly, legitimately believe that because I put a paragraph there, I was no longer responding to him? Stop using straw man argumentation and/or misdirection please. I agreed who you responded to. I also said you changed paragraph and then began using generic, unspecific terminology, which is what you are trying really hard to ignore, since it is true. At this point I'm having a legitimately hard time telling if you believe what you are saying, or just a troll. At this point I am one hundred percent certain that you are an idiot. Side: Yes
1
point
Well, I've lost my patience with you. I'll give you this, its amusing to see this website finally has a left wing troll. Took long enough. Welcome to the site. It took you a while but you’ve finally realised this guy has 100s of accounts and never debates his whole function is trolling and disruption. Side: No
1
point
At this point I'm having a legitimately hard time telling if you believe what you are saying, or just a troll. He believes trees will grow without being planted, and that people will be fed in a magical garden that no one has to plant because he doesn't believe in labor, laws, borders, governments, etc. A full blown Marxist can easily be confused with someone intentionally trying to act stupid. In this case, he's a Marxist, thus stupid. Or in reverse, he's stupid, thus a Marxist... Side: Yes
In which case you need to make clear that you are still writing about the same topic in your new paragraph as I have just explained to you, dummy. Pity you weren’t about when Marx was writing his tripe , Engels the other tool amongst this pair of misfits did all the editing for the boil covered boozer , that’s of course when he wasn’t brutalizing his work force Side: No
Pity you weren’t about when Marx was writing his tripe Ahahaha! Strange how Marx's "tripe" makes it onto the university curriculum, whereas making up fake quotes doesn't. Engels the other tool amongst this pair of misfits did all the editing for the boil covered boozer That's awesome Jody. I'm sure that if you were "about" while Marx was writing his globally acclaimed theses' of economy and politics, he would have been very interested to hear the angry taunts of a drunken Irish paedophile incapable of writing coherently in his own language. Side: Yes
Ahahaha! Strange how Marx's "tripe" makes it onto the university curriculum, whereas making up fake quotes doesn't. Yeah , so does beauty therapy .Whos making up fake quotes That's awesome Jody. I'm sure that if I were "about" while Marx was writing his globally ignored theses' of economy and politics, he would have been very interested and happy to hear the compliments of a drunken paedophile like me incapable of writing coherently in my his own language. He would indeed Nom two drunken peados reunited , how thrilling Side: No
Yeah , so does beauty therapy The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia https://www.econlib. You must have a similar article entitled, The Prevalence of Beauty Therapy in Academia, correct? Or perhaps your ridiculous ad absurdum is simply what happens when idiots spend 20 minutes thinking about how to write a comeback. Side: Yes
The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia https://www.econlib. You never read your own article you fucking idiot it says the complete and opposite of what you just stated your dummy , you always get everything wrong .The article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics not what they teach you dummy The Prevalence of Marxism in Academia 44 By Bryan Caplan As the Iron Curtain crumbled, people often joked, “Marxism is dead everywhere – except American universities.” The stereotype of the Marxist professor runs deep. But is this stereotype grounded in statistical fact? Here are the results from a 2006 nationally representative survey of American professors. The survey asked if the professor considered himself “radical,” “political activist,” or “Marxist.” Survey says: Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. The share rises to 5% in the humanities. The shocker, though, is that as recently as 2006, about 18% of social scientists self-identified as Marxists. Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, the authors of the study, hasten to say, “Move along, nothing to see here.” [S]elf-identified Marxists are rare in academe today. The highest proportion of Marxist academics can be found in the social sciences, and there they represent less than 18 percent of all professors (among the social science fields for which we can issue discipline-specific estimates, sociology contains the most Marxists, at 25.5 percent). Or perhaps your ridiculous ad absurdum is simply what happens when idiots spend 20 minutes thinking about how to write a comeback. Thrashed again Nom no Marxism in academia only a handful of academics with Marxist leanings ......next 🤣🤣🤣👏👏👏 Side: No
You never read your own article you fucking idiot it says the complete and opposite of what you just stated your dummy Ahahahaha! So it says Marxism ISN'T prevalent in academia? Thus contradicting its own assertion? You are just simply laughably stupid. you always get everything wrong Shut up you stupid Irish halfwit. As the Iron Curtain crumbled, people often joked, “Marxism is dead everywhere – except American universities.” So the best sentence you could find to cherry-pick out of this entire article to illustrate that Marxism is not prevalent in academia is a complete and frank admission that Marxism is indeed prevalent in academia? Christ, you are so pointless. You are literally more stupid than a block of cheese. All you know how to do in life is run your idiotic mouth like a train. Side: Yes
Self-Identifying Marxist Professors Outnumber Conservatives as College Professors About 18 percent of social scientists in the United States self-identify as Marxists, compared to only about 5 percent who identify as conservatives, Dunn and Shields reported. So, to clarify, Marxism is NOT prevalent in academia, despite there being more than THREE times as many Marxists as Conservatives in the social sciences? Let's run a little further with this, since it is your own FAR RIGHT RAGS which are spreading the rumours that Marxism is "taking over universities" in the first place:- The neo-Marxist takeover of our universities https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/09/ So make up your mind, moron! Are Marxists taking over the universities or are they a rarity? Side: Yes
Noms article Obviously the article has absolutely nothing to do with me. Your guilt by association fallacy is astonishingly transparent. The author of the article literally compared Marxism to a religious faith and said, I quote, "Marxism is nonsense". Does that sound like an article I would write, you goddamned dumbass? .Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. And like all Conservatives he is cherry-picking his facts while purposefully omitting others. For example, he has not made clear how that compares to Conservative professors, or indeed any other political grouping. Furthermore, this data is thirteen years old. The following table (2018) shows that professors who self-identify as Conservative represent 0.085 percent of University professors, so Marxists are three times more common!! https://www.nationalaffairs.com/ Side: Yes
Obviously the article has absolutely nothing to do with me. Your guilt by association fallacy is astonishingly transparent. You used the article as a defence to your ridiculous assertions you dummy you associated yourself with the article you dummy The author of the article literally compared Marxism to a religious faith and said, I quote, "Marxism is nonsense". Does that sound like an article I would write, you goddamned dumbass? Yet you used it to make a case for yourself without checking you turd .Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. And like all Conservatives he is cherry-picking his facts while purposefully omitting others. For example, he has not made clear how that compares to Conservative professors, or indeed any other political grouping. Furthermore, this data is thirteen years old You picked it numb nuts . The following table shows that professors who self-identify as Conservative represent 0.085 of University professors, so Marxists are three times more common!! Nonsense , no doubt you will dispute that as well in 10 minutes time also Side: No
You used the article as a defence to your ridiculous assertions It was not a "ridiculous assertion" to point out that Marxism is taught in universities as part of the standard social sciences curriculum. That was a fact. You are an imbecile. That is another fact. Yet you used it to make a case for yourself False. The wording of the title was my case. That is what I posted. The content of the article had nothing to do with my case, which is why you deflected to it in the first place. Nonsense , no doubt you will dispute that as well in 10 minutes time also Everything you don't like is nonsense, including Marxism, the poor, blacks and truth. Side: Yes
You picked it numb nuts No I didn't you boring liar. I picked the title of the article to counter your stupid fallacy that Marxism is not important to universities because SOME universities teach beauty therapy courses. YOU were the one who referred to the "data". Furthermore, the data itself shows that in certain academic subjects (i.e. the social sciences) Marxists outnumber Conservatives by more than three to one. Hence, the data itself exonerates me, however much you (or the author) try to spin it. Side: Yes
no I didn't you boring liar. You did I picked the title of the article Oh you only picked the title 🤣🤣I know you neglected to read it dummy to counter your stupid fallacy that Marxism is not important to universities because SOME universities teach beauty therapy courses. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics you idiot not what they’re teaching
Furthermore, the data itself shows that in certain academic subjects (i.e. the social sciences) Marxists outnumber Conservatives by more than three to one. Hence, the data itself exonerates me, however much you (or the author) try to spin Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism , Christ you’re one dumb fucker Side: No
You did No I didn't you boring liar. Oh you only picked the title The title was what I quoted. The content of the article formed no part of any argument I made. It was something you deflected to out of sheer intellectual dishonesty. Beauty therapy is actually more important Sure buddy. Eighteen percent of professors in the social sciences self-identify as beauty therapists. Ahahahahahaha! Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot LOL! What the literal hell do you expect Marxists to lean towards if it isn't Marxism you ASTONISHINGLY stupid drunken Irish imbecile?? Side: Yes
no I didn't you boring liar. You did I picked the title of the article Oh you only picked the title 🤣🤣I know you neglected to read it dummy to counter your stupid fallacy that Marxism is not important to universities because SOME universities teach beauty therapy courses. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics you idiot not what they’re teaching Furthermore, the data itself shows that in certain academic subjects (i.e. the social sciences) Marxists outnumber Conservatives by more than three to one. Hence, the data itself exonerates me, however much you (or the author) try to spin Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism , Christ you’re one dumb fucker Side: No
You did No I didn't you boring liar. Oh you only picked the title I have told you this several times already. I know you neglected to read it dummy Neglect has nothing to do with it, retard. My point was that Marxism is not comparable to beauty therapy. The content of the article was irrelevant to that point. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics Marxism is actually more important because significantly more university courses involve learning about Marxism than involve learning about beauty therapy. Hence, you are consistent about being wrong. Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot Tutors with Marxist leaning tend to lean towards Marxism. This is correct. You are not correct that I am the idiot. That is you. that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism THEN THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE IS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO YOUR SUPPOSED POINT, RETARD. The content of the article is about tutors with Marxist leanings, so why the goddamned hell did you deflect to it if it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make? Christ you’re one dumb fucker Side: Yes
no I didn't you boring liar. You did I picked the title of the article Oh you only picked the title 🤣🤣I know you neglected to read it dummy to counter your stupid fallacy that Marxism is not important to universities because SOME universities teach beauty therapy courses. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics you idiot not what they’re teaching Furthermore, the data itself shows that in certain academic subjects (i.e. the social sciences) Marxists outnumber Conservatives by more than three to one. Hence, the data itself exonerates me, however much you (or the author) try to spin Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism , Christ you’re one dumb fucke Side: No
You did No I didn't you boring liar. Oh you only picked the title I have told you this several times already. I know you neglected to read it dummy Neglect has nothing to do with it, retard. My point was that Marxism is not comparable to beauty therapy. The content of the article was irrelevant to that point. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics Marxism is actually more important because significantly more university courses involve learning about Marxism than involve learning about beauty therapy. Hence, you are consistent about being wrong. Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot Tutors with Marxist leaning tend to lean towards Marxism. This is correct. You are not correct that I am the idiot. That is you. that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism THEN THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE IS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO YOUR SUPPOSED POINT, RETARD. The content of the article is about tutors with Marxist leanings, so why the goddamned hell did you deflect to it if it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make? Christ you’re one dumb fucker Side: Yes
no I didn't you boring liar. You did I picked the title of the article Oh you only picked the title 🤣🤣I know you neglected to read it dummy to counter your stupid fallacy that Marxism is not important to universities because SOME universities teach beauty therapy courses. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics you idiot not what they’re teaching Furthermore, the data itself shows that in certain academic subjects (i.e. the social sciences) Marxists outnumber Conservatives by more than three to one. Hence, the data itself exonerates me, however much you (or the author) try to spin Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism , Christ you’re one dumb fucke Side: No
You did No I didn't you boring liar. Oh you only picked the title I have told you this several times already. I know you neglected to read it dummy Neglect has nothing to do with it, retard. My point was that Marxism is not comparable to beauty therapy. The content of the article was irrelevant to that point. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics Marxism is actually more important because significantly more university courses involve learning about Marxism than involve learning about beauty therapy. Hence, you are consistent about being wrong. Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot Tutors with Marxist leaning tend to lean towards Marxism. This is correct. You are not correct that I am the idiot. That is you. that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism THEN THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE IS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO YOUR SUPPOSED POINT, RETARD. The content of the article is about tutors with Marxist leanings, so why the goddamned hell did you deflect to it if it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make? Christ you’re one dumb fucker Side: Yes
no I didn't you boring liar. You did I picked the title of the article Oh you only picked the title 🤣🤣I know you neglected to read it dummy to counter your stupid fallacy that Marxism is not important to universities because SOME universities teach beauty therapy courses. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics you idiot not what they’re teaching Furthermore, the data itself shows that in certain academic subjects (i.e. the social sciences) Marxists outnumber Conservatives by more than three to one. Hence, the data itself exonerates me, however much you (or the author) try to spin Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism , Christ you’re one dumb fucke Side: No
You did No I didn't you boring liar. Oh you only picked the title I have told you this several times already. I know you neglected to read it dummy Neglect has nothing to do with it, retard. My point was that Marxism is not comparable to beauty therapy. The content of the article was irrelevant to that point. Beauty therapy is actually more important as your article is talking about the political leanings of certain academics Marxism is actually more important because significantly more university courses involve learning about Marxism than involve learning about beauty therapy. Hence, you are consistent about being wrong. Tutors with Marxist leanings you idiot Tutors with Marxist leaning tend to lean towards Marxism. This is correct. You are not correct that I am the idiot. That is you. that doesn’t mean they teach Marxism THEN THE CONTENT OF THE ARTICLE IS THEREFORE IRRELEVANT TO YOUR SUPPOSED POINT, RETARD. The content of the article is about tutors with Marxist leanings, so why the goddamned hell did you deflect to it if it has nothing to do with the point you were trying to make? Christ you’re one dumb fucker Side: Yes
I didn't write the article you astonishingly stupid retard. It isn't "mine". You used it to attempt to make a point , your own article disputes your lies .....let me help .....Noms article ..... Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. 👈😱😱😱😱😱 I simply posted it to make the point that Marxism is prevalent in academia. It’s not ....Noms article ..... Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. 👈😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🥁 Side: No
You used it to attempt to make a point And you used it to try to change the point that I made. your own article disputes your lies I didn't tell any lies. I posted the title of the article and then challenged you to find a similar article about beauty therapy. Since you were unable to do that, and unprepared to admit your own fallacy, you changed the subject completely. The very fact that there are ANY Marxist professors at all is enough to prove the point that your verbal assaults against Marxism are unwarranted and stupid. Side: Yes
I didn't write the article you astonishingly stupid retard. It isn't "mine". You used it to attempt to make a point , your own article disputes your lies .....let me help .....Noms article ..... Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. 👈😱😱😱😱😱 I simply posted it to make the point that Marxism is prevalent in academia. It’s not ....Noms article ..... Overall, Marxism is a tiny minority faith. Just 3% of professors accept the label. 👈😱😱😱😱😱😱😱🥁 Side: No
1
point
that’s of course when he wasn’t brutalizing his work force You are just literally such an idiot. Two people (i.e. Marx and Engels) who dedicated their entire lives to finding a way to emancipate society from the rulership and oppression of a small class of slaveowners, and you are fixated with pretending they hated the working class. You are just literally a moron mate. Everything you ever write is stupid, infantile and false. Side: Yes
You are just literally such an idiot. I’m not I’m right (again) you’re wrong that makes you the uneducated idiot .....again Two people (i.e. Marx and Engels) who dedicated their entire lives to finding a way to emancipate society from the rulership and oppression of a small class of slaveowners, 🤣🤣🤣Marx spent his time mostly boozing and never paid his maid a penny , Engels led the Cheshire hunt and hob knobbed with lords and ladies also paying his staff minimum wage , Engels was a rich industrialist . Regards slaveowners Marx detested Blacks , Jews and Mexicans but you’re never read Marx or Engels in their own words because you’re terrified of the truth instead you defend the indefensible and you are fixated with pretending they hated the working class. Oh really , Marx loved his maid so much he never paid her and Engels paid his workers minimum wage because he loved them , you’re exactly like an SS officer justifying Nazi brutality You are just literally a moron mate. No , that’s idiots like you who lie to protect their hero’s Everything you ever write is stupid, infantile and false. You’ve obviously never read Marx or Engels correspondence as it’s to unpalatable for your tiny brain which has to keep this ridiculous myth alive about what humanitarians these two champagne socialists were Side: No
I’m not I’m right (again) You have never been right about anything in your entire life. Marx spent his time mostly boozing and never paid his maid a penny And yet the Wikipedia page on this drunken layabout describes him as:- a German philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist and socialist revolutionary. Who published more than twenty two books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KarlMarx#MovetoLondonandfurtherwriting:_1850–1860 Regards slaveowners Marx detested Blacks No he didn't you ridiculously stupid little twit. The only person who hates blacks here is you, as can be PROVEN:- https://i.imgur.com/ppHq8dZ.png Consider your Freudian projection to be the mark of a truly great idiot. Side: Yes
Poor Nom in denial land again 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌☺️ Marx and his hatred of blacks .....Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. Marx and Engels the drunks in action ...... Karl Marx (1818-1883) is mostly known as one of the founders of Communism. His ideology was the foundation for dictatorships all over the world. What a lot of people don’t know s that Marx and his comrade Friedrich Engels were usually pretty smashed when they discussed their ideas for a perfect socialist society. These nights of drunken philosophizing resulted in the Communist Manifesto and the book Das Kapital. That’s right, this heavy boozing resulted in the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, the Cold War and communist regimes all over the world. Speaking of impact. The word about Marx’ drinking skills first got around in his days as a student. In 1835 he had a promising start at the University of Bonn, but soon got slightly distracted from his studies, as he was the co-president of his tavern club. Marx even got imprisoned for a day for “disturbing the peace with drunken noise”. His period of “wild rampaging”, as his father Heinrich Marx called it, in Bonn lasted only a year. After which his father transfered Karl Marx to the University of Berlin, where he actually took his Philosophy studies serious. Still this didn’t stop him from consuming large amounts of beer and taking drunken donkey rides through the villages nearby. In 1844 Marx and Engels bonded for life in what historians referred to as 10 beer-soaked days. Another drinking buddy of Marx was Edgar Bauer. He accompanied him on his drunk donkey rides and in the 1850’s the duo was reunited in London, England. The writer Wilhelm Liebrecht described how the German group took a drink in every bar between Oxford Street and Hampstead Road. For the people who are not familiar with the 19th century English capital, this was quite an ambitious plan given the enormous amount of pubs on the route. At a certain point some loud singing lured Marx and his company into a bar. The foreigners were welcomed by the English with plenty of drinks. Liebrecht: “For a while, everything went smoothly. We had to drink many healths and to bring out and listen to many a toast. Then the unexpected suddenly happened… Edgar Bauer, hurt by some chance remark, turned the tables and ridiculed the English snobs. Marx launched an enthusiastic eulogy on German science and music – no other country, he said, would have been capable of producing such masters of music as Beethoven, Mozart, Haendel and Haydn, and the Englishmen who had no music were in reality far below the Germans who had been prevented hitherto only by the miserable political and economic conditions from accomplishing any great practical work, but who would yet outclass all other nations. So fluently I have never heard him speak English.” The English hosts weren’t too pleased and the Germans left the scene in a hurry. A little later Liebrecht describes how they turned to hooliganism. “Now we had enough of our “beer trip” for the time being, and in order to cool our heated blood, we started on a double quick march, until Edgar Bauer stumbled over some paving stones. ‘Hurrah, an idea!’ And in memory of mad student pranks he picked up a stone, and Clash! Clatter! a gas lantern went flying into splinters. Nonsense is contagious – Marx and I did not stay behind, and we broke four or five street lamps – it was, perhaps, 2 o’clock in the morning and the streets were deserted in consequence. But the noise nevertheless attracted the attention of a policeman who with quick resolution gave the signal to his colleagues on the same beat. And immediately countersignals were given. The position became critical.” In the end Marx and his friends managed to lose the cops on their tail, but the incident paints a good picture of the drinking habbits of this founder of Communism. Although by now we can conclude that Marx’s dream of a socialist state didn’t work out, it is impressive how the product of a drunken mind had such a huge impact on the world. Meaning that drunks can absolutely make a difference. Side: No
Poor Nom in denial land again Poor STUPID Jody is too STUPID to understand that culture was different in the lifetime of Marx than culture is today. He is probably this STUPID because he has never been anywhere near a university. Here are some quotes from that other well-known racist, Abraham Lincoln:- 1) There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... 2) In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers." 3) I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. 4) I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. 5) Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man. You see now, dumbass? Anybody can cherry-pick words from a different time and culture and spin them into something they are not. The reason most people do not do that is because most people are not disgustingly stupid racist idiots, projecting their own disgusting racism onto their own enemies. I refer you again to the PROOF of your own hatred against blacks, Jody:- https://i.imgur.com/ppHq8dZ.png Maybe you should get your own house in order before you go accusing other people of racism, you nauseatingly stupid bigot. Side: Yes
Poor Nom in denial land again 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌☺️ Marx and his hatred of blacks .....Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. Marx and Engels the drunks in action ...... Karl Marx (1818-1883) is mostly known as one of the founders of Communism. His ideology was the foundation for dictatorships all over the world. What a lot of people don’t know s that Marx and his comrade Friedrich Engels were usually pretty smashed when they discussed their ideas for a perfect socialist society. These nights of drunken philosophizing resulted in the Communist Manifesto and the book Das Kapital. That’s right, this heavy boozing resulted in the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, the Cold War and communist regimes all over the world. Speaking of impact. The word about Marx’ drinking skills first got around in his days as a student. In 1835 he had a promising start at the University of Bonn, but soon got slightly distracted from his studies, as he was the co-president of his tavern club. Marx even got imprisoned for a day for “disturbing the peace with drunken noise”. His period of “wild rampaging”, as his father Heinrich Marx called it, in Bonn lasted only a year. After which his father transfered Karl Marx to the University of Berlin, where he actually took his Philosophy studies serious. Still this didn’t stop him from consuming large amounts of beer and taking drunken donkey rides through the villages nearby. In 1844 Marx and Engels bonded for life in what historians referred to as 10 beer-soaked days. Another drinking buddy of Marx was Edgar Bauer. He accompanied him on his drunk donkey rides and in the 1850’s the duo was reunited in London, England. The writer Wilhelm Liebrecht described how the German group took a drink in every bar between Oxford Street and Hampstead Road. For the people who are not familiar with the 19th century English capital, this was quite an ambitious plan given the enormous amount of pubs on the route. At a certain point some loud singing lured Marx and his company into a bar. The foreigners were welcomed by the English with plenty of drinks. Liebrecht: “For a while, everything went smoothly. We had to drink many healths and to bring out and listen to many a toast. Then the unexpected suddenly happened… Edgar Bauer, hurt by some chance remark, turned the tables and ridiculed the English snobs. Marx launched an enthusiastic eulogy on German science and music – no other country, he said, would have been capable of producing such masters of music as Beethoven, Mozart, Haendel and Haydn, and the Englishmen who had no music were in reality far below the Germans who had been prevented hitherto only by the miserable political and economic conditions from accomplishing any great practical work, but who would yet outclass all other nations. So fluently I have never heard him speak English.” The English hosts weren’t too pleased and the Germans left the scene in a hurry. A little later Liebrecht describes how they turned to hooliganism. “Now we had enough of our “beer trip” for the time being, and in order to cool our heated blood, we started on a double quick march, until Edgar Bauer stumbled over some paving stones. ‘Hurrah, an idea!’ And in memory of mad student pranks he picked up a stone, and Clash! Clatter! a gas lantern went flying into splinters. Nonsense is contagious – Marx and I did not stay behind, and we broke four or five street lamps – it was, perhaps, 2 o’clock in the morning and the streets were deserted in consequence. But the noise nevertheless attracted the attention of a policeman who with quick resolution gave the signal to his colleagues on the same beat. And immediately countersignals were given. The position became critical.” In the end Marx and his friends managed to lose the cops on their tail, but the incident paints a good picture of the drinking habbits of this founder of Communism. Although by now we can conclude that Marx’s dream of a socialist state didn’t work out, it is impressive how the product of a drunken mind had such a huge impact on the world. Meaning that drunks can absolutely make a difference. Side: No
Poor Nom in denial land again Poor STUPID Jody is too STUPID to understand that culture was different in the lifetime of Marx than culture is today. He is probably this STUPID because he has never been anywhere near a university. Here are some quotes from that other well-known racist, Abraham Lincoln:- 1) There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... 2) In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers." 3) I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. 4) I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. 5) Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man. You see now, dumbass? Anybody can cherry-pick words from a different time and culture and spin them into something they are not. The reason most people do not do that is because most people are not disgustingly stupid racist idiots, projecting their own disgusting racism onto their own enemies. I refer you again to the PROOF of your own hatred against blacks, Jody:- https://i.imgur.com/ppHq8dZ.png Maybe you should get your own house in order before you go accusing other people of racism, you nauseatingly stupid bigot. Side: Yes
uted 0 points Poor Nom in denial land again 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌☺️ Marx and his hatred of blacks .....Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. Marx and Engels the drunks in action ...... Karl Marx (1818-1883) is mostly known as one of the founders of Communism. His ideology was the foundation for dictatorships all over the world. What a lot of people don’t know s that Marx and his comrade Friedrich Engels were usually pretty smashed when they discussed their ideas for a perfect socialist society. These nights of drunken philosophizing resulted in the Communist Manifesto and the book Das Kapital. That’s right, this heavy boozing resulted in the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, the Cold War and communist regimes all over the world. Speaking of impact. The word about Marx’ drinking skills first got around in his days as a student. In 1835 he had a promising start at the University of Bonn, but soon got slightly distracted from his studies, as he was the co-president of his tavern club. Marx even got imprisoned for a day for “disturbing the peace with drunken noise”. His period of “wild rampaging”, as his father Heinrich Marx called it, in Bonn lasted only a year. After which his father transfered Karl Marx to the University of Berlin, where he actually took his Philosophy studies serious. Still this didn’t stop him from consuming large amounts of beer and taking drunken donkey rides through the villages nearby. In 1844 Marx and Engels bonded for life in what historians referred to as 10 beer-soaked days. Another drinking buddy of Marx was Edgar Bauer. He accompanied him on his drunk donkey rides and in the 1850’s the duo was reunited in London, England. The writer Wilhelm Liebrecht described how the German group took a drink in every bar between Oxford Street and Hampstead Road. For the people who are not familiar with the 19th century English capital, this was quite an ambitious plan given the enormous amount of pubs on the route. At a certain point some loud singing lured Marx and his company into a bar. The foreigners were welcomed by the English with plenty of drinks. Liebrecht: “For a while, everything went smoothly. We had to drink many healths and to bring out and listen to many a toast. Then the unexpected suddenly happened… Edgar Bauer, hurt by some chance remark, turned the tables and ridiculed the English snobs. Marx launched an enthusiastic eulogy on German science and music – no other country, he said, would have been capable of producing such masters of music as Beethoven, Mozart, Haendel and Haydn, and the Englishmen who had no music were in reality far below the Germans who had been prevented hitherto only by the miserable political and economic conditions from accomplishing any great practical work, but who would yet outclass all other nations. So fluently I have never heard him speak English.” The English hosts weren’t too pleased and the Germans left the scene in a hurry. A little later Liebrecht describes how they turned to hooliganism. “Now we had enough of our “beer trip” for the time being, and in order to cool our heated blood, we started on a double quick march, until Edgar Bauer stumbled over some paving stones. ‘Hurrah, an idea!’ And in memory of mad student pranks he picked up a stone, and Clash! Clatter! a gas lantern went flying into splinters. Nonsense is contagious – Marx and I did not stay behind, and we broke four or five street lamps – it was, perhaps, 2 o’clock in the morning and the streets were deserted in consequence. But the noise nevertheless attracted the attention of a policeman who with quick resolution gave the signal to his colleagues on the same beat. And immediately countersignals were given. The position became critical.” In the end Marx and his friends managed to lose the cops on their tail, but the incident paints a good picture of the drinking habbits of this founder of Communism. Although by now we can conclude that Marx’s dream of a socialist state didn’t work out, it is impressive how the product of a drunken mind had such a huge impact on the world. Meaning that drunks can absolutely make a difference Side: No
Poor Nom in denial land again Poor STUPID Jody is too STUPID to understand that culture was different in the lifetime of Marx than culture is today. He is probably this STUPID because he has never been anywhere near a university. Here are some quotes from that other well-known racist, Abraham Lincoln:- 1) There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... 2) In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers." 3) I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. 4) I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. 5) Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man. You see now, dumbass? Anybody can cherry-pick words from a different time and culture and spin them into something they are not. The reason most people do not do that is because most people are not disgustingly stupid racist idiots, projecting their own disgusting racism onto their own enemies. I refer you again to the PROOF of your own hatred against blacks, Jody:- https://i.imgur.com/ppHq8dZ.png Maybe you should get your own house in order before you go accusing other people of racism, you nauseatingly stupid bigot. Side: Yes
Poor Nom in denial land again 🤣🤣🤣🤣👌☺️ Marx and his hatred of blacks .....Marx had a racial vision that might be interesting to his modern-day black supporters. In a letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote: It is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes who had joined Moses’ exodus from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother on the paternal side had not interbred with a n—–. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. Marx and Engels the drunks in action ...... Karl Marx (1818-1883) is mostly known as one of the founders of Communism. His ideology was the foundation for dictatorships all over the world. What a lot of people don’t know s that Marx and his comrade Friedrich Engels were usually pretty smashed when they discussed their ideas for a perfect socialist society. These nights of drunken philosophizing resulted in the Communist Manifesto and the book Das Kapital. That’s right, this heavy boozing resulted in the Soviet Union, the Berlin Wall, the Cold War and communist regimes all over the world. Speaking of impact. The word about Marx’ drinking skills first got around in his days as a student. In 1835 he had a promising start at the University of Bonn, but soon got slightly distracted from his studies, as he was the co-president of his tavern club. Marx even got imprisoned for a day for “disturbing the peace with drunken noise”. His period of “wild rampaging”, as his father Heinrich Marx called it, in Bonn lasted only a year. After which his father transfered Karl Marx to the University of Berlin, where he actually took his Philosophy studies serious. Still this didn’t stop him from consuming large amounts of beer and taking drunken donkey rides through the villages nearby. In 1844 Marx and Engels bonded for life in what historians referred to as 10 beer-soaked days. Another drinking buddy of Marx was Edgar Bauer. He accompanied him on his drunk donkey rides and in the 1850’s the duo was reunited in London, England. The writer Wilhelm Liebrecht described how the German group took a drink in every bar between Oxford Street and Hampstead Road. For the people who are not familiar with the 19th century English capital, this was quite an ambitious plan given the enormous amount of pubs on the route. At a certain point some loud singing lured Marx and his company into a bar. The foreigners were welcomed by the English with plenty of drinks. Liebrecht: “For a while, everything went smoothly. We had to drink many healths and to bring out and listen to many a toast. Then the unexpected suddenly happened… Edgar Bauer, hurt by some chance remark, turned the tables and ridiculed the English snobs. Marx launched an enthusiastic eulogy on German science and music – no other country, he said, would have been capable of producing such masters of music as Beethoven, Mozart, Haendel and Haydn, and the Englishmen who had no music were in reality far below the Germans who had been prevented hitherto only by the miserable political and economic conditions from accomplishing any great practical work, but who would yet outclass all other nations. So fluently I have never heard him speak English.” The English hosts weren’t too pleased and the Germans left the scene in a hurry. A little later Liebrecht describes how they turned to hooliganism. “Now we had enough of our “beer trip” for the time being, and in order to cool our heated blood, we started on a double quick march, until Edgar Bauer stumbled over some paving stones. ‘Hurrah, an idea!’ And in memory of mad student pranks he picked up a stone, and Clash! Clatter! a gas lantern went flying into splinters. Nonsense is contagious – Marx and I did not stay behind, and we broke four or five street lamps – it was, perhaps, 2 o’clock in the morning and the streets were deserted in consequence. But the noise nevertheless attracted the attention of a policeman who with quick resolution gave the signal to his colleagues on the same beat. And immediately countersignals were given. The position became critical.” In the end Marx and his friends managed to lose the cops on their tail, but the incident paints a good picture of the drinking habbits of this founder of Communism. Although by now we can conclude that Marx’s dream of a socialist state didn’t work out, it is impressive how the product of a drunken mind had such a huge impact on the world. Meaning that drunks can absolutely make a differenc Side: No
Poor Nom in denial land again Poor STUPID Jody is too STUPID to understand that culture was different in the lifetime of Marx than culture is today. He is probably this STUPID because he has never been anywhere near a university. Here are some quotes from that other well-known racist, Abraham Lincoln:- 1) There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races ... A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas ... 2) In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and in their places be, pari passu [on an equal basis], filled up by free white laborers." 3) I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. 4) I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. 5) Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man. You see now, dumbass? Anybody can cherry-pick words from a different time and culture and spin them into something they are not. The reason most people do not do that is because most people are not disgustingly stupid racist idiots, projecting their own disgusting racism onto their own enemies. I refer you again to the PROOF of your own hatred against blacks, Jody:- https://i.imgur.com/ppHq8dZ.png Maybe you should get your own house in order before you go accusing other people of racism, you nauseatingly stupid bigot. Side: Yes
Noms all upset , why are you talking about Lincoln you fool? Nom cannot defends Marx racism , no matter Nom is a racist like Marx Nom cannot defend the fact Marx was a rapist , Nom is good to go on that too Nom totally agrees with Marx’s “reasoning” as to why he never paid his maid a penny Side: No
1
point
I'm sorry, but I'm not gearing my posts towards people that can't tell that my responses are in response to things I'm responding to. The comment format on this website is one of the easiest to understand I have ever found. It's pretty easy to tell what people are referring to. Side: Yes
I'm sorry, but I'm not gearing my posts towards people that can't tell that my responses are in response to things I'm responding to. You are a pathetic moron who is making up lies. I agreed who you were responding to. I do not agree with your pathetically stupid premise that you are incapable of changing the subject when you write a reply. If that were true I would be precluded from taking this opportunity to remind you what an imbecile you are. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
No. Democrats are not calling for a popular uprising of the working class to democratically seize the means of production. Better tell Bernie Sanders. There has been a recent influx in popularity of Social Democratic Theory, however. But that isn't Marxism, any more than Libertarianism is Modern American Conservatism. I would say Libertarianism and Conservatism are comfortable in the same room together. I would say the same about Democratic Socialism vs Marxism as well. Why? Because there is nothing "Democratic" about Socialism by definition. Otherwise it's not Socialism in the first place. It's Democratic ----- fill in the blank. Side: Yes
Because there is nothing "Democratic" about Socialism by definition. Oh God, why are you so stupid? Why why why? Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production, with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralised planned socialist economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ So, to clarify, you believe the people cannot democratically decide to own the means of production themselves instead of giving all the wealth and power to an elite few narcissistic billionaires? Great argument buddy. Better take that one straight to the Oxford Debating Centre. Side: No
1
point
1
point
1
point
Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production Bwahahahaha! Yes, yes. A very fine Democratic Nazism styled argument by the left. Ya see, it's not Nazism. It's Democratic Nazism... The Germans will control the means of production ya see...just so long as they wear the swastika and pledge allegiance to the Leftist Fuhrer. Other than that it's Democratic and filled with individual liberty and justice for all!... 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Side: Yes
1
point
Bernie Sanders has never called for that. And your claim about democratic socialism is a little silly. Are you familiar with the actual ideology in question? Or are you just combining your preconceived notions of what those terms mean? Because democratic socialism requires a democratic political system and a capitalist system of creating wealth. Those are 2 core principles. Only the former of those is compatible with Marxism, and even then the democracy of Social Democratic states is representative while Marxism requires an untenable level of direct democracy. Side: No
1
point
Bernie Sanders has never called for that. "Bernie Sanders in the 1970s urged nationalization of most major industries" -CNN Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Are you familiar with the actual ideology in question? Or are you just combining your preconceived notions of what those terms mean? Let's ask Chuck Schumer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Looks like they don't know either. Why? It's an Alinsky style cover name for something more sinister. I've found the best way to know someone is to look at their past. Bernie attended a Russian Communist kibbutz. (CNN) A small collective community in northern Israel, modeled after the communist ideals of the Soviet Union, may hold clues to the development of U.S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders' political beliefs. Sanders is Jewish and a self-described "democratic socialist." In the 1960s, he spent several months volunteering on an Israeli collective farm, or kibbutz, that functioned according to communist principles. Why? Well let's examine reality by examining some others. Obama tends to sympathize with the Islamic world. Why? He was raised in an Islamic country. Donald Trump tends to sympathize with Christians. Why? He had a Catholic raising. Bernie Sanders? Well...you get the idea... Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Because democratic socialism requires a democratic political system and a capitalist system of creating wealth. Those are 2 core principles. Yes, the Alinskyite Communists always sell your slavery as something utopian and fictional or as something non-threatening in the beginning. Alinsky's followers were literally schooled to go to Republican rallies dressed as Klansmen and cheer everything the speaker said. Deception is the key tenant of Alinskyism. Hillary Clinton is provably an Alinskyite. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HillaryRodhamseniorthesis Bernie is no different in this way, and he used the same methodology on Joe Biden a couple of weeks ago. And the entire leadership of the Democratic Party uses the deception of his "Common Enemy" principle from Rules for Radicals. This is the ideology of those running the Democratic Party. This is why Democrat politicians choose not to attack their opponents' logic, but rather their character. It's a more effective tactic than actually refuting yourcopponent, especially if their logic is superior. Alisnkyism is why the Democrats can flip on any issue as is necessary. It's not based on logic, ethics, standards, or compromise to them, but on strategy. Whatever it takes to keep power and enhance that power. They don't want to control healthcare to help you, but to have omnipotent power over your health needs. They don't want Socialism to help you, but to make you dependent on them. Hootie is an Alinskyite and a prime example of what they look like when they are anonymous. Side: Yes
1
point
1
point
Continued... Hootie is an Alinskyite and a prime example of what they look like when they are anonymous and their thoughts are on parade. For example. Nom caught proving he is a Hitlerian fascist Nom quote: "Corbyn and his socialist army are coming for you. There is no escape. There is only assimilation or death." http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/TheresaMayshouldretire Nom Quote proving he's an antisemitic Nazi: "Shut up you extremist Jew prick." Nom: I believe that conservatives need to be banned from the internet and put in concentration camps where they will be force fed Marxism until they puke and ask for seconds. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: Yes
Bronto admits his own retardation:- "Someone help me, I beg you. I'm too stupid to accomplish basic tasks" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto admits Nom is a genius:- "Care to address being an unaccomplished genius?" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto admits what caused his present worldview:- "a KKK grand wizard as a mentor" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto plagiarises yet more ideas he borrowed from Hitler:- "fuck the common good" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto willing to turn a blind eye to child murder for the right price:- "The mass murder of children in Waco. But that's none of my business..." http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto admits he reads Hitler and Mussolini speeches "fervently":- "I've read [them] all" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto explains his theory of crime:- "There are no police" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto explains his theory of why his first theory is so stupid:- "There is no world." http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto explains his theory of why his second theory is so stupid:- "Trump is connected to space aliens" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto admits that socialists are honest people:- "Socialists never make or take bribes " http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Bronto expects us to be grateful that he's a Nazi:- "I provide you links of Hitler and Mussolini's quotes" http://www.createdebate.com/browse/ Side: No
Marx’s perspective on class and power leading to class struggle can be extended to modern notions and theories of inter-group dynamics as power relationships. It seems inaccurate to completely distinguish Marx from modern applications of Marxist thought on the basis that modern class-struggle perspectives leave out a something of Marx’s theory. Analogously, it’s not as though neo-Keynesian economics is completely distinct from Keynesian economics. Side: Yes
|