Fedel wrote:Duvniask wrote:I am the one who mentioned it, Christ. It refutes your point that "socialism is in a better position than it has ever been".
That's not what I claimed. What I claimed was:
"It's stronger than ever in
most Western nations."
I emphasized this in my response to you as well.
I responded to precisely that statement. I have been telling you, this entire time, that socialism was stronger in most western countries in the early 20th century and that you, sir, are wrong about it being stronger "than ever" in most western countries. This is not difficult to understand unless you have a serious problem understanding English. You have shown me nothing to disprove that; you have literally only brought up Bernie Sanders and the US, which aside from being just one country is also an outlier where the socialist movement was largely nipped in the bud compared to other places.
Socialism not being at its most prominent in the US as it ever has does not mean that socialism in the majority of other western nations is not better off than it was.
I never fucking said the US, Christ in Holy Fucking Heaven.
Look, mate. If you want to talk about other western countries, why don't you? I did, for example, when I said: "Anyone familiar with the history of the socialist movement knows of the socialist uprisings taking place in Germany and Spain and the strength of the labor unions and student movement prior to the advent of neoliberalism."
Duvniask wrote:It's very simple pal. You say "socialism is stronger than ever in the western world", and I refute that assertion by directing you to a point in history where socialism was obviously, undeniably stronger, because actual attempts at creating a new order were undertaken by millions of people.
Incorrect. Read my response above and read future posts more carefully.
How is it incorrect? You have nothing to show for it.
Duvniask wrote:And I said you were wrong, by pointing out it was stronger in the early 20th century.
That... Doesn't disprove what I said. Pointing out that socialism was stronger at one point in a single western nation does not disprove the statement that "socialism is stronger than ever in most western nations."
What is so difficult about this concept for you?
Holy fucking shit, you can't read worth a fuck. You're making shit up about what I said out of thin air.
Get this through your skull: nothing I said was about one country. Literally. Retrace the entire conversation. There is not a single line where I focus my attention on a single country at once.
I said you were wrong by pointing out it was stronger in the early 20th century (IN THE WESTERN WORLD AS A WHOLE). Holy fuck, my mind is melting.
Duvniask wrote:Yes you fucking did. You literally just brought up Bernie Sanders. I'm not the one who commented on specific countries, YOU ARE.
No I fucking didn't. My comment that I hadn't brought up the U.S. specifically was in regards to how favorably socialism is viewed in the present day in comparison to the early 20th century. I acknowledge this in my very next sentence where I state what I HAD talked about in relation to the U.S.
The conversation went like this:
"It's stronger than ever in most Western nations."
"No, It was stronger in the early 20th century"
"Do you think a candidate like Bernie Sanders would have been able to garner anywhere near as much support during the Cold War era (...)"
YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP BERNIE SANDERS. YOU WERE THE ONE THAT STARTED TALKING ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. I didn't ask you about him. I didn't say anything about socialism in the United States. You did. You're the one that brought up this tangent that is completely irrelevant to my original response to you. My response concerned all Western countries. Your response to my response was to go on a tangent about Bernie Sanders.
Sorry if that wasn't clear enough for you, but I won't have you strawmanning me. Accidentally or otherwise.
I'm not, you just have zero reading comprehension.
Duvniask wrote:"It's stronger than ever in most Western nations."
"I'm not saying that socialism is the most viable it's ever been at here in the U.S."
Why are you, at once, telling me that it's both stronger than ever and then giving an example where you're contradicting your broader narrative by saying it's not the most viable it's ever been? Also, again, you're the one bringing up the United States specifically.
Are you attempting to claim that it's impossible for socialism to be stronger overall in western nations if a single western nation is not as socialist as it was at one point in its history?
No, I'm saying you're not even providing any evidence for your own claim, because the only piece of evidence to back up your silly assertion is Bernie Sanders and the United States, which, again, is just one country.
Nah, I never did. I brought up the U.S. to point out that socialism in general is viewed far more favorably there than it has been in recent years which is incredible when you consider that it wouldn't have been unreasonable for the average citizen in the 50's to have attacked you for espousing such views.
The fuck are you talking about? Yes, you're the one that
brought up the US... so why are you bringing up the US specifically and not mentioning any other country? I thought we were talking about the West as a whole. At least I was.
You see? You're the one that veered off on this tangent, and for some reason you've got it into your head that I was the one that started it. I have zero idea why you can't even figure out who said what in this conversation.
Duvniask wrote:Appeasing people doesn't mean ending capitalism. While the calls for such appeasement might be indicative of an overall increase in the strength of socialists, it can obviously not match the point in time where socialist mass movements were actually making attempts at toppling capitalism.
It depends on whether you think these subversive attempts are likely to be more successful or not.
No, because giving people public healthcare doesn't make capitalism magically disappear. It disappears when it is abolished.