
hey i jus learend something in my grd 8 history class i bet u all donno wut national socialism is
hint its wut i believe in lol
Advertisement

by 1000 Cats » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:20 am

Norstal wrote:You are a hatiater: one who radiates hate.
Meryuma wrote:No one is more of a cat person than 1000 Cats!
FST wrote:Any sexual desires which can be satiated within a healthy and consensual way should be freed from shame. Bizarre kinks and fetishes are acceptable and nothing to be ashamed of as long as they are acted out in a context where everyone consents and no one is hurt.

by Alien Space Bats » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:28 am
Tovaslavia wrote:I am a socialist who does not like the materialist values promoted by capitalism. I think the workers are severely underpaid and oppressed by the government. II hope someday we have a world where the workers labor for themselves and the society, not for their boss or corporation

by The Socialist Republic » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:31 am

by Person012345 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:46 am
Vecherd wrote:I guess I am a Anti-Socialist. Socialism is too oppressive.

by Vecherd » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:48 am
Person012345 wrote:Vecherd wrote:I guess I am a Anti-Socialist. Socialism is too oppressive.
Yes, workers owning the business is horribly oppressive. As opposed to top-down capitalist corporations where the board are an oligarchy who can do whatever they want to their employees (at least within the statist law).

by Person012345 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:53 am
Vecherd wrote:Person012345 wrote:Yes, workers owning the business is horribly oppressive. As opposed to top-down capitalist corporations where the board are an oligarchy who can do whatever they want to their employees (at least within the statist law).
The term worker is stupid. All employees are workers, perhaps except the lazy ones. Corporations are statism and also oppressive.

by Vecherd » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:56 am

by Lord Tothe » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:03 am
"Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But that is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities." ~ Thomas SzaszThe Empire of Pretantia wrote:[...] TLDR; welcome to the internet. Bicker or GTFO.

by Person012345 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:10 am

by Person012345 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:12 am
Lord Tothe wrote:Voluntary socialist: No one is barred from joining a socialist society, and no one is required to participate in a socialist society.

by Westerstralia » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:16 am

by Hippostania » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:17 am

by New Rogernomics » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:23 am
Then it shouldn't exist anymore, so it isn't 'nonexistent socialism', instead its just nothing.Hippostania wrote:I'm a non-socialist. Nonexistant socialism is the best form of socialism!


by New Freedomstan » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:24 am


by Lahuland » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:27 am

by Vecherd » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:29 am
Person012345 wrote:Vecherd wrote:
Then why do Marxists bitch about the workers, when all people that has a job is working? They hate the rich but still bitch about their rights. Makes no sense.
In Marxism and stuff,it usually refers to the proletariat. And they don't "hate the rich", they advocate equality. I don't think the socialist stage of marxism prohibits rich people. If a business did well, all the people working in that company would become rich comparative to a company that did poorly.
Besides, Marxism's ultimate goal is communism, so they'd be speaking from a communist perspective.

by Person012345 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:34 am
Vecherd wrote:Person012345 wrote:In Marxism and stuff,it usually refers to the proletariat. And they don't "hate the rich", they advocate equality. I don't think the socialist stage of marxism prohibits rich people. If a business did well, all the people working in that company would become rich comparative to a company that did poorly.
Besides, Marxism's ultimate goal is communism, so they'd be speaking from a communist perspective.
Equality by pulling down the successful.

by Person012345 » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:36 am

by Lord Tothe » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:37 am
Person012345 wrote:Lord Tothe wrote:Voluntary socialist: No one is barred from joining a socialist society, and no one is required to participate in a socialist society.
So capitalism? Co-operatives exist even today. And I don't know any capitalists who have actually thought about their position that advocate an absolute ban on a business operating a socialist type business model.
"Why is self-control, autonomy, such a threat to authority? Because the person who controls himself, who is his own master, has no need for an authority to be his master. This, then, renders authority unemployed. What is he to do if he cannot control others? To be sure, he could mind his own business. But that is a fatuous answer, for those who are satisfied to mind their own business do not aspire to become authorities." ~ Thomas SzaszThe Empire of Pretantia wrote:[...] TLDR; welcome to the internet. Bicker or GTFO.

by Gauntleted Fist » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:42 am
Ski Apache Nation wrote:What kind of socialism are you?

by Kemaliste » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:18 am

by Cameroi » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:17 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Achan, Aggicificicerous, Alcala-Cordel, American Legionaries, Andsed, Elejamie, Fractalnavel, Hirota, Negev Chan, Ryemarch, Thermodolia, Ukcross, Umeria
Advertisement