Rise of Domestic US terrorism fueled mostly by far right

[Myrensis]

Do you realise you are using socialist reasoning, taking all the right steps, yet somehow you come to the conclusion of capitalism, which doesn’t fit your reasoning?

Under capitalism, someone who did not work for a profit gets to reap that profit. A land owner gets the profit while the farmer gets a wage, while the farmer did all of the actual labour. Socialism, then, says that the labourer should get the full value of their labour, not just a wage.

Or do you think socialism is when the government does stuff? The more stuff it does, the socialister it is?

The land worked, the land is part of the landowner, and therefore the land owner worked. Or do you think the farmer could grow crops without soil?

Conservatives say shit like this with a straight face, and then act genuinely confused about why younger generations are less and less enamored with this whole 'capitalism' thing.

[The Emerald Legion]

The land worked, the land is part of the landowner, and therefore the land owner worked. Or do you think the farmer could grow crops without soil?

Conservatives say shit like this with a straight face, and then act genuinely confused about why younger generations are less and less enamored with this whole 'capitalism' thing.

I'm part of the younger generation.

[The Alamann]

Incorrect. All material wealth, regardless of method of distribution, requires a cost in human labor. Human labor requires humans to sacrifice a portion of their limited time alive making stuff.

Capitalism allows you to keep the fruits of your labor, Socialism demands you give it to the community, which will hand you back just enough to keep you able to work.

Socialism is parasitic, and this is why any government it infests inevitably dies.

There is no difference between personal and private property. The only difference is the arbitrary 'difference' concocted by those looking to justify their hate.

Do you realise you are using socialist reasoning, taking all the right steps, yet somehow you come to the conclusion of capitalism, which doesn’t fit your reasoning?

Under capitalism, someone who did not work for a profit gets to reap that profit. A land owner gets the profit while the farmer gets a wage, while the farmer did all of the actual labour. Socialism, then, says that the labourer should get the full value of their labour, not just a wage.

Or do you think socialism is when the government does stuff? The more stuff it does, the socialister it is?

I do love freedom, I am free, I am financially stable but not rich, and I support democracy. I am also pro-capitalism. Not radical capitalism which is stupid but moderate mainstream capitalism.

So what I underlined is flawed.

But hey- wanna overthrow capitalism? Go for it. And fail miserably in the end.

Capitalism always tries to convert itself into its worst form, though.

In the end, you are captive by the need to pay for food, housing, and healthcare, and you work not only because you like to, but because the alternative is starvation and hardship. How free are you?

Far freer than the literal slaves beneath an authoritarian socialist or communist regime. Which is literally what socialism and communism always leads to.

If your for radical freedom I can suggest anarchy but I hope you have taken survivalist courses and know how to shoot - or for God’s sake - carry a gun at least.

[United Socialist Territories]

Do you realise you are using socialist reasoning, taking all the right steps, yet somehow you come to the conclusion of capitalism, which doesn’t fit your reasoning?

Under capitalism, someone who did not work for a profit gets to reap that profit. A land owner gets the profit while the farmer gets a wage, while the farmer did all of the actual labour. Socialism, then, says that the labourer should get the full value of their labour, not just a wage.

Or do you think socialism is when the government does stuff? The more stuff it does, the socialister it is?


Capitalism always tries to convert itself into its worst form, though.

In the end, you are captive by the need to pay for food, housing, and healthcare, and you work not only because you like to, but because the alternative is starvation and hardship. How free are you?

Far freer than the literal slaves beneath an authoritarian socialist or communist regime. Which is literally what socialism and communism always leads to.

If your for radical freedom I can suggest anarchy but I hope you have taken survivalist courses and know how to shoot - or for God’s sake - carry a gun at least.

May I introduce you to Scandinavia?

[The Emerald Legion]

Far freer than the literal slaves beneath an authoritarian socialist or communist regime. Which is literally what socialism and communism always leads to.

If your for radical freedom I can suggest anarchy but I hope you have taken survivalist courses and know how to shoot - or for God’s sake - carry a gun at least.

May I introduce you to Scandinavia?

You mean the Scandinavia that despite memes, isn't socialist and is heavily capitalistic?

[Myrensis]

May I introduce you to Scandinavia?

You mean the Scandinavia that despite memes, isn't socialist and is heavily capitalistic?

Pretty sure he means the Scandinavia that has all the social programs and spending that conservatives scream is the height of tyrannical oppressive communism when anyone suggests even taking baby steps toward them in the US.

Not that the doublethink isn't entertaining.

"What about Scandinavia?"

"That's not socialism."

"Okay,we want the Nordic Model in the US."

"THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!"

[Herzpunkt]

You mean the Scandinavia that despite memes, isn't socialist and is heavily capitalistic?

Pretty sure he means the Scandinavia that has all the social programs and spending that conservatives scream is the height of tyrannical oppressive communism when anyone suggests even taking baby steps toward them in the US.

Not that the doublethink isn't entertaining.

"What about Scandinavia?"

"That's not socialism."

"Okay,we want the Nordic Model in the US."

"THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!"

the nordic model is hyper capitalist with welfare programs, but it can't have those programs without a hypercapitalist support base.

[Myrensis]

Pretty sure he means the Scandinavia that has all the social programs and spending that conservatives scream is the height of tyrannical oppressive communism when anyone suggests even taking baby steps toward them in the US.

Not that the doublethink isn't entertaining.

"What about Scandinavia?"

"That's not socialism."

"Okay,we want the Nordic Model in the US."

"THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!"

the nordic model is hyper capitalist with welfare programs, but it can't have those programs without a hypercapitalist support base.

Excellent, so conservative should have no problem with implementing similar policies in the US, right?

[Herzpunkt]

the nordic model is hyper capitalist with welfare programs, but it can't have those programs without a hypercapitalist support base.

Excellent, so conservative should have no problem with implementing similar policies in the US, right?

The left in America dosn't want to implement hypercapitalist policys though, it would never pass even if the right wanted to.

[Nevertopia]

Its funny how the Far-Right likes to paint the left as extremists when they're marching for a black man being murdered by a cop but don't bat an eye when the far-right literally storm their capitol.

[Herzpunkt]

Its funny how the Far-Right likes to paint the left as extremists when they're marching for a black man being murdered by a cop but don't bat an eye when the far-right literally storm their capitol.

what is "far right" exactly?

and you are rightly painted as an extremist when you march with a group with leaders who literally say it's a Marxist movement.

" Guys why does the evil far right call us extreme, I know were marching in a literal marxist identified movement, gee what makes them think were extreme"

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Pretty sure he means the Scandinavia that has all the social programs and spending that conservatives scream is the height of tyrannical oppressive communism when anyone suggests even taking baby steps toward them in the US.

Not that the doublethink isn't entertaining.

"What about Scandinavia?"

"That's not socialism."

"Okay,we want the Nordic Model in the US."

"THAT'S SOCIALISM!!!"

the nordic model is hyper capitalist with welfare programs, but it can't have those programs without a hypercapitalist support base.

What exactly do you call hypercapitalism?

[Herzpunkt]

the nordic model is hyper capitalist with welfare programs, but it can't have those programs without a hypercapitalist support base.

What exactly do you call hypercapitalism?

For me personally extreme deregulation, laizzae fair.

But thats besides the point, scandanavian nations dont operate anywhere near “socialism”

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

What exactly do you call hypercapitalism?

For me personally extreme deregulation, laizzae fair.

But thats besides the point, scandanavian nations dont operate anywhere near “socialism”

It’a not beside the point, you claim that the Nordic model has very little regulation, while they actually have tons of regulation, which shows how destructive unobstructed capitalism is.

Yes, the Nordics don’t operate under a socialistic system. They are countries where the means of production are owned by capitalists, and they keep that system in place with generous welfare. All the same, they show that increased deregulation is not the solution for societies ills.

[Kubra]

Do you realise you are using socialist reasoning, taking all the right steps, yet somehow you come to the conclusion of capitalism, which doesn’t fit your reasoning?

Under capitalism, someone who did not work for a profit gets to reap that profit. A land owner gets the profit while the farmer gets a wage, while the farmer did all of the actual labour. Socialism, then, says that the labourer should get the full value of their labour, not just a wage.

Or do you think socialism is when the government does stuff? The more stuff it does, the socialister it is?

The land worked, the land is part of the landowner, and therefore the land owner worked. Or do you think the farmer could grow crops without soil?

From Smith to Marx to the modern day, this is someone no one says. Disdain for classical land-rent is the one thing all schools of economics have in common.

[Picairn]

Disdain for classical land-rent is the one thing all schools of economics have in common.

Remind me of this:

[Lanoraie II]

I love how they don't count all the individual attacks done by individual people for the left, but do for the right.

The left is far, far more violent, and I say that as a leftist. It's disgusting and dishonest for them to not do it.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I love how they don't count all the individual attacks done by individual people for the left, but do for the right.

The left is far, far more violent, and I say that as a leftist. It's disgusting and dishonest for them to not do it.

This just isn't true though. Left wing terrorism in America by and large died with the collapse of the USSR.

[Ifreann]

I love how they don't count all the individual attacks done by individual people for the left, but do for the right.

The left is far, far more violent, and I say that as a leftist. It's disgusting and dishonest for them to not do it.

Maybe you should tell them about all the terrorist attacks they failed to count.

[Vassenor]

I love how they don't count all the individual attacks done by individual people for the left, but do for the right.

The left is far, far more violent, and I say that as a leftist. It's disgusting and dishonest for them to not do it.

Show us the real data then.

[Elwher]

The land worked, the land is part of the landowner, and therefore the land owner worked. Or do you think the farmer could grow crops without soil?

From Smith to Marx to the modern day, this is someone no one says. Disdain for classical land-rent is the one thing all schools of economics have in common.

First, in order to buy the land, the owner had to do something to get the money, so he did work or his parents did so. Second, land ownership is an investment and, like any investment, has risks involved, The value of the land can go up, stay the same, or go down. Only in the first condition does the owner make a profit. Third, the money used to buy the land could have bought some other investment or been spent on other things, so there is an opportunity cost to the landowner.

All of these mean that there is nothing inherently evil or selfish about owning land and allowing others the use of it for a reasonable fee.

[Ifreann]

From Smith to Marx to the modern day, this is someone no one says. Disdain for classical land-rent is the one thing all schools of economics have in common.

First, in order to buy the land, the owner had to do something to get the money, so he did work or his parents did so. Second, land ownership is an investment and, like any investment, has risks involved, The value of the land can go up, stay the same, or go down. Only in the first condition does the owner make a profit. Third, the money used to buy the land could have bought some other investment or been spent on other things, so there is an opportunity cost to the landowner.

All of these mean that there is nothing inherently evil or selfish about owning land and allowing others the use of it for a reasonable fee.

The argument that rent-seeking cannot be inherently evil and selfish since there is a risk that the enterprise may not prove profitable is an interesting argument from the same poster who in this very thread has argued that stealing, an endeavour well known to be risky in more senses than just financial, is terrorism.

[Phenix Springs]

Its funny how the Far-Right likes to paint the left as extremists when they're marching for a black man being murdered by a cop

Funny how that must be something to do with the nationwide riots perpetrated by leftists.

[Lanoraie II]

I love how they don't count all the individual attacks done by individual people for the left, but do for the right.

The left is far, far more violent, and I say that as a leftist. It's disgusting and dishonest for them to not do it.

This just isn't true though. Left wing terrorism in America by and large died with the collapse of the USSR.

Hmm, lemme pull up the riots of BLM over the past decade real quick...

[Ifreann]

Its funny how the Far-Right likes to paint the left as extremists when they're marching for a black man being murdered by a cop

Funny how that must be something to do with the nationwide riots perpetrated by leftists.

People fought for justice? Wow, that's some extreme shit.