It used to be, man. This was before Marx and his direct disciples learned that universal suffrage wasn't basically communism.
Advertisement
by Kubra » Thu Aug 06, 2020 7:17 pm
It used to be, man. This was before Marx and his direct disciples learned that universal suffrage wasn't basically communism.
by Lower Nubia » Fri Aug 07, 2020 9:32 am
Duvniask wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:
Haden't realised you'd written another post.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/
"Socialism is a rich tradition of political thought and practice, the history of which contains a vast number of views and theories, often differing in many of their conceptual, empirical, and normative commitments. In his 1924 Dictionary of Socialism, Angelo Rappoport canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling his readers in the book’s preface that “there are many mansions in the House of Socialism” (Rappoport 1924: v, 34–41). To take even a relatively restricted subset of socialist thought, Leszek Kołakowski could fill over 1,300 pages in his magisterial survey of Main Currents of Marxism (Kołakowski 1978 [2008]). Our aim is of necessity more modest. In what follows, we are concerned to present the main features of socialism, both as a critique of capitalism, and as a proposal for its replacement."
I've read this page. What it says has nothing to do with social democracy, and it doesn't serve your argument in any way, whatsoever.
In fact, the boldened part (and I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that) is just a straight up contradiction with all the nonsense you've said in this thread so far. As it says, socialism exists as the potentiality of a replacement for capitalism; it exists in opposition to it, thus also implying that we must transcend capitalism to have socialism. This straight up leaves out any place for social democratic reformism of the capitalist system (by definition, reforming something means not replacing it). While the page makes a rather lackluster attempt at properly identifying the central characteristics of capitalism, as an economic system, it is clear their layout of socialism as a comprehensive system cannot be reconciled with social democracy. They later discuss piecemeal reforms as an alternative to systematic overhaul, but nowhere are they obtuse enough to present this as somehow a socialist economic system; it might be a system run by self-identified socialists, perhaps, but it is in staunch contrast to everything discussed earlier in the article.I win.
This pettiness is beyond parody. You didn't prove shit and you didn't respond to any of the questions I asked and instead felt confident spewing the same spiel, using a page that doesn't even agree with you. It's the kind of shit that would make a cartoon character spit out their drink in astonishment.
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Duvniask » Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:07 am
Lower Nubia wrote:Duvniask wrote:I've read this page. What it says has nothing to do with social democracy, and it doesn't serve your argument in any way, whatsoever.
In fact, the boldened part (and I have no idea what you're trying to prove with that) is just a straight up contradiction with all the nonsense you've said in this thread so far. As it says, socialism exists as the potentiality of a replacement for capitalism; it exists in opposition to it, thus also implying that we must transcend capitalism to have socialism. This straight up leaves out any place for social democratic reformism of the capitalist system (by definition, reforming something means not replacing it). While the page makes a rather lackluster attempt at properly identifying the central characteristics of capitalism, as an economic system, it is clear their layout of socialism as a comprehensive system cannot be reconciled with social democracy. They later discuss piecemeal reforms as an alternative to systematic overhaul, but nowhere are they obtuse enough to present this as somehow a socialist economic system; it might be a system run by self-identified socialists, perhaps, but it is in staunch contrast to everything discussed earlier in the article.
This pettiness is beyond parody. You didn't prove shit and you didn't respond to any of the questions I asked and instead felt confident spewing the same spiel, using a page that doesn't even agree with you. It's the kind of shit that would make a cartoon character spit out their drink in astonishment.
Yawn.
You didn't read it very well did you?
"We turn now to the last dimension of socialism (DIII), which concerns the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones. The discussion on this dimension is difficult in at least two respects which call for philosophical exploration (Gilabert 2017a: 113–23, 2015: 216–20). The first issue concerns feasibility. The question is whether socialist systems are accessible from where we are now—whether there is a path from here to there. But what does feasibility mean here? It cannot just mean logical or physical possibility, as these would rule out very few social systems. The relevant feasibility parameters seem instead to involve matters of technical development, economic organization, political mobilization, and moral culture. (For some discussion on these parameters see Wright 2010: ch. 8; Chibber 2017.) But such parameters are comparatively “soft”, in that they indicate probability prospects rather than pose strict limits of possibility, and can be significantly changed over time. When something is not feasible to do right now,
we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can)."
"A second strategy, picking out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.i), has been taming capitalism. It mobilizes the population (sometimes in sharp political struggles) to elect governments and implement policies that respond to the worst harms generated by capitalism, with the aim of neutralizing them. New policies include social insurance responding to risks faced by the population (e.g., illness and unemployment), tax funded, state provision of public goods which markets tend to fail to provide (e.g., education, public transportation, research and development, etc.), and regulation of negative externalities produced in markets (e.g., regarding pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, etc.). The strategy, implemented by social-democratic parties, worked quite well during the three decades of the “Golden Age” or Trente Glorieuses following World War II. However, progress was halted and partly rolled back since the retreat of social democracy and the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Possible explanatory factors are the financialization of capitalism, and the effects of globalization, as discussed above in section 4.3.
There is a debate as to whether capitalism is really tamable—it may be that the Golden Age was only a historical anomaly, borne out of a very particular set of political and economic circumstances."
See the bold bit at the bottom? That's you. That's your purist argument. Notice these academics know your argument and still include it in the scope of socialism.
As it concludes the above are part of DIII which it says:
"Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization."
What does it say? of Capitalism? No, no. Of SOCIALISM.
Now if you'd stop being such a little purist, we can get on with our lives.
by Duvniask » Fri Aug 07, 2020 11:44 am
Rightonrighton wrote:Duvniask wrote: -Snip-
Disagreed about Cuba and the historical Eastern Bloc countries. Certainly they retain(ed) some elements of state, and even private, capitalism as a result of uneven development and the complexities of concrete real world phenomena that abstractions like “socialism” obscure,
and certainly they were not the classless, moneyless societies socialists are fighting to establish.
But I think they are legitimately termed socialist because (even when hampered by antagonistic governments) workers were their ruling classes and production was based primarily on state ownership and planning.
by Lower Nubia » Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:06 pm
Duvniask wrote:I am not really bothered by your malice because your childish outbursts earlier made me stop taking you seriously. What does bother me is that you don't listen, because you don't respond to any of my arguments about why you pulling up all these texts and articles isn't a response to my concerns; you keep doing it, expecting that it will somehow make you look good.
Duvniask wrote:I have consistently been saying academics treat the matter lazily and without proper rigor. Your response is to pull even more links out of your ass that discuss socialism - yes? Need I repeat myself? You're not responding to my claim of the lack of rigour, you're just giving me material to criticize. It's like if I challenged the history books in school for being inaccurate and your response was to keep bringing up inaccurate history books, not understanding that it is a non sequitor.
Duvniask wrote:My argument: "Even academics are wrong about how they use these terms."
Your response: WELL THIS ARTICLE AGREES WITH ME (setting aside, for a moment, how much you misinterpret them)
Do you understand that your posts are not meaningful responses to my own? The response you should give, if you actually understood anything I've been saying, is to show that your semantics are correct, logical and coherent and not just appeals to authority (because that is literally all you have done, appeal to authority, the very authority which I criticize).
Duvniask wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:"We turn now to the last dimension of socialism (DIII), which concerns the transformation of capitalist societies into socialist ones. The discussion on this dimension is difficult in at least two respects which call for philosophical exploration (Gilabert 2017a: 113–23, 2015: 216–20). The first issue concerns feasibility. The question is whether socialist systems are accessible from where we are now—whether there is a path from here to there. But what does feasibility mean here? It cannot just mean logical or physical possibility, as these would rule out very few social systems. The relevant feasibility parameters seem instead to involve matters of technical development, economic organization, political mobilization, and moral culture. (For some discussion on these parameters see Wright 2010: ch. 8; Chibber 2017.) But such parameters are comparatively “soft”, in that they indicate probability prospects rather than pose strict limits of possibility, and can be significantly changed over time. When something is not feasible to do right now,
Yes, this entire chapter is discussing the transformation of capitalism into socialism, but that discussion also veers into feasibility and reactions to the historical failure of socialism in places like Russia.
we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can)."
Duvniask wrote:I'm persistently weirded out by your random boldening of sentences that have nothing to do with anything. Who disputes this? It is a very Marxian view that socialism doesn't appear out of nowhere and can only exist under the proper circumstances. So you putting it in bold letters is completely redundant (what are you trying to prove, even?)
Duvniask wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:"A second strategy, picking out the combination of possibilities (a.ii) and (b.i), has been taming capitalism. It mobilizes the population (sometimes in sharp political struggles) to elect governments and implement policies that respond to the worst harms generated by capitalism, with the aim of neutralizing them. New policies include social insurance responding to risks faced by the population (e.g., illness and unemployment), tax funded, state provision of public goods which markets tend to fail to provide (e.g., education, public transportation, research and development, etc.), and regulation of negative externalities produced in markets (e.g., regarding pollution, product and workplace hazards, predatory market behavior, etc.). The strategy, implemented by social-democratic parties, worked quite well during the three decades of the “Golden Age” or Trente Glorieuses following World War II. However, progress was halted and partly rolled back since the retreat of social democracy and the introduction of neoliberalism in the 1980s. Possible explanatory factors are the financialization of capitalism, and the effects of globalization, as discussed above in section 4.3.
This is where you start getting a very wrongful impression. You skipped quite a bit in your post here, where the article discusses the historical difficulties of the transition to socialism and how self-described socialists have responded.
Duvniask wrote:That is when it starts talking about these strategies - they are strategies that describe what socialists think should be done, not strategies that necessarily result in a socialist system, which to some started to seem unattainable because:
Duvniask wrote:"it might be asked who is to evaluate and decide upon what is to be done at each stage of the process, on what grounds can it be expected that earlier stages will enhance the likelihood of the success of later stages rather than undermine them (e.g., by enshrining institutions or values that will make it hard to move further along the path), what transitional costs can be accepted in earlier stages, and whether the costs expected are outweighed by the desirability and the increased probability of attaining the later stages. Such questions do not want for difficulty."
You see, this "second strategy" is about how to transform society (or how socialist politicians can strive to make it better) in light of the historical difficulties of developing socialism. It is a strategy that is a response to the problems that ostensibly "socialist" states had historically; nowhere does the article in question say that the result of social democratic policies is equivalent to socialism or a socialist economic system; that would be in contradiction with all the opening paragraphs of the article carefully laying out capitalism and how socialism is the negation of capitalism (its alternative). What the article does suggest, and that is not up for dispute, is that social democratic welfare state policies offer an apparent means of social transformation that do not do away with capitalism, at least immediately.
Duvniask wrote:Lower Nubia wrote:All of the above I've said fits in with the broader chapter of the article:
"A second difficulty concerns the articulation of all things considered appropriate strategies that combine feasibility considerations with the normative desiderata provided by socialist principles. The question here is: what is the most reasonable path of transformation to pursue for socialists given their understanding of the principles animating their political project, viewed against the background of what seems more or less feasible to achieve at different moments, and within different historical contexts? Complex judgments have to be formed about the precise social systems at which it would be right to aim at different stages of the sequence of transformation, and about the specific modes of political action to deploy in such processes. These judgments would combine feasibility and desirability to assess short-term and long-term goals, their intrinsic costs and benefits, and the promise of the former to enhance the achievement of the latter. The difficulty of forming such judgments is compounded by the uncertainty about the prospects of large societal changes (but also about the long-term consequences of settling for the status quo)."
In short, what's actually being said here is closer to: some socialists, who believed that capitalism was unjust and undesirable, ultimate came to the conclusion could not be surpassed (because of the historical problems with transition), and that it must instead be tamed to whatever extent possible - what the article never says at any point whatsoever is that this "taming" means the establishment of a socialist society. It is included, of course, because social democracy came out of the socialist movement and had important ramifications for much of the West in terms of its politics and socioeconomic development. I do not take that to mean the article is saying that "social democracy = socialism".
Duvniask wrote:
They include it in an article about the philosophy of socialism, because social democracy evolved from the socialist movement and took many of its concomitant ethical and moralistic concerns to heart, but it had its own unique responses to what should be done about capitalism.
[/quote]Duvniask wrote:This proves nothing. The matter of identifying the appropriate agents for change is literally just a question of how the socialist movement should look. In the paragraph you took this from, the article discusses whether the movement should focus solely on class or include more diverse concerns simultaneously. It has nothing to do with any point you or I have made.
- Anglo-Catholic
Anglican- Socially Centre-Right
- Third Way Neoliberal
- Asperger
Syndrome- Graduated
in Biochemistry
"These are they who are made like to God as far as possible, of their own free will, and by God's indwelling, and by His abiding grace. They are truly called gods, not by nature, but by participation; just as red-hot iron is called fire, not by nature, but by participation in the fire's action."
Signature Updated: 15th April, 2022
by Duvniask » Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:02 pm
Lower Nubia wrote:Duvniask wrote:I am not really bothered by your malice because your childish outbursts earlier made me stop taking you seriously. What does bother me is that you don't listen, because you don't respond to any of my arguments about why you pulling up all these texts and articles isn't a response to my concerns; you keep doing it, expecting that it will somehow make you look good.
I have quoted professionals that continue to agree that taming Capitalism and then transforming it into a socialist system is itself an acceptable definition under Socialism. If you don't like that, then tough.
Duvniask wrote:I have consistently been saying academics treat the matter lazily and without proper rigor. Your response is to pull even more links out of your ass that discuss socialism - yes? Need I repeat myself? You're not responding to my claim of the lack of rigour, you're just giving me material to criticize. It's like if I challenged the history books in school for being inaccurate and your response was to keep bringing up inaccurate history books, not understanding that it is a non sequitor.
You're basically saying that because I find academics that disagree with you, they must be lazy. The academics have been rigorous - its simply you who has not. The scope of academic rigour is utterly beyond this conversation - it requires a complete systematic review of their work, something that cannot be tested in the scope of a conversation.
Duvniask wrote:My argument: "Even academics are wrong about how they use these terms."
Your response: WELL THIS ARTICLE AGREES WITH ME (setting aside, for a moment, how much you misinterpret them)
Do you understand that your posts are not meaningful responses to my own? The response you should give, if you actually understood anything I've been saying, is to show that your semantics are correct, logical and coherent and not just appeals to authority (because that is literally all you have done, appeal to authority, the very authority which I criticize).
There is no misinterpretation, the source material also concludes that Social Democracy is a variant of Socialism.
Duvniask wrote:Yes, this entire chapter is discussing the transformation of capitalism into socialism, but that discussion also veers into feasibility and reactions to the historical failure of socialism in places like Russia.
we could have dynamic duties to make it feasible to do later by developing our relevant capacities in the meantime. The feasibility judgments must then be scalar rather than binary and allow for diachronic variation. These features make them somewhat murky, and not straightforwardly amenable to the hard-edged use of impossibility claims to debunk normative requirements (via contraposition on the principle that ought implies can)."
Feasability is not the thing under discussion. The option being under socialism is the discussion, whether that option works is a different conversation, so if you'd stop getting stuck on that for 10 minutes, maybe you'll progress.
Duvniask wrote:I'm persistently weirded out by your random boldening of sentences that have nothing to do with anything. Who disputes this? It is a very Marxian view that socialism doesn't appear out of nowhere and can only exist under the proper circumstances. So you putting it in bold letters is completely redundant (what are you trying to prove, even?)
Social Democracy is a variant definition under Socialism. For someone who said I don't listen, the fact you've ignored this point is hilarious.
Duvniask wrote:This is where you start getting a very wrongful impression. You skipped quite a bit in your post here, where the article discusses the historical difficulties of the transition to socialism and how self-described socialists have responded.
The historical difficulties aren't my concern, the concern is Social Democracy is a variant of Socialism. Whether Social Democracy can bring about Socialism is a different conversation.
Duvniask wrote:That is when it starts talking about these strategies - they are strategies that describe what socialists think should be done, not strategies that necessarily result in a socialist system, which to some started to seem unattainable because:
This is all irrelevant, the point of conversation is not the feasibility of the choice, but that the choice was a socialist one. As I have said, many, many, many, many, times. The whole point of this conversation is that Social Demcoracy is one form of socialism. The Article I quoted confirms this.
Duvniask wrote:"it might be asked who is to evaluate and decide upon what is to be done at each stage of the process, on what grounds can it be expected that earlier stages will enhance the likelihood of the success of later stages rather than undermine them (e.g., by enshrining institutions or values that will make it hard to move further along the path), what transitional costs can be accepted in earlier stages, and whether the costs expected are outweighed by the desirability and the increased probability of attaining the later stages. Such questions do not want for difficulty."
You see, this "second strategy" is about how to transform society (or how socialist politicians can strive to make it better) in light of the historical difficulties of developing socialism. It is a strategy that is a response to the problems that ostensibly "socialist" states had historically; nowhere does the article in question say that the result of social democratic policies is equivalent to socialism or a socialist economic system; that would be in contradiction with all the opening paragraphs of the article carefully laying out capitalism and how socialism is the negation of capitalism (its alternative). What the article does suggest, and that is not up for dispute, is that social democratic welfare state policies offer an apparent means of social transformation that do not do away with capitalism, at least immediately.
My. God. It literally says it. The result. As I've said, is not the concern! It's the fact that Social Democracy is an option under Socialism. Whether it works, is a different bloody conversation.
Duvniask wrote:
In short, what's actually being said here is closer to: some socialists, who believed that capitalism was unjust and undesirable, ultimate came to the conclusion could not be surpassed (because of the historical problems with transition), and that it must instead be tamed to whatever extent possible - what the article never says at any point whatsoever is that this "taming" means the establishment of a socialist society. It is included, of course, because social democracy came out of the socialist movement and had important ramifications for much of the West in terms of its politics and socioeconomic development. I do not take that to mean the article is saying that "social democracy = socialism".
Who said Social Democracy = Socialism? I said it was simply a facet under the definition.
So your point above agrees with that.
It literally says DIII, which includes Social Democracym is a form of Socialism.
It literally says that. I can take a picture of it for you.
Duvniask wrote:
They include it in an article about the philosophy of socialism, because social democracy evolved from the socialist movement and took many of its concomitant ethical and moralistic concerns to heart, but it had its own unique responses to what should be done about capitalism.
They then confirm that DIII, which is the above, is a variant of Socialism. My point all along.
Duvniask wrote:This proves nothing. The matter of identifying the appropriate agents for change is literally just a question of how the socialist movement should look. In the paragraph you took this from, the article discusses whether the movement should focus solely on class or include more diverse concerns simultaneously. It has nothing to do with any point you or I have made.
This is what the entire conversation is about, so yes, it does.
Next time you make another, long winded, stupid response,
I'm just going to post the part where it says DIII which includes ALL of the things above, as a form of socialism.
"Other significant issues regarding dimension DIII of socialism are the identification of appropriate political agents of change and their prospects of success in the context of contemporary globalization."
That's the quote. DIII includes Social Democracy. It says this in DIII.
by Cisairse » Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:16 pm
Ceranapis wrote:Anatoliyanskiy wrote:After Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination for president to Joe Biden, a moderate, some concerns have arisen to the survival of socialism in western democracies.
After a huge Labour defeat in the UK election, a substantial loss of seats from the NDP and a large right-wing resurgence in the EU, the general socialist ideology has suffered in the past 5 years or so in the West.
I would challenge this premise, slightly. Yes, the "aesthetically socialist" parties and candidates have not done well electorally in recent years. Corbyn was an electoral disaster, Sanders failed to diversify outside of his base to win the nomination. Sanders moved the conversation to the left, however. Biden's platform is to the left of Clinton's, and Clinton's platform was to the left of Obama's. The DSA has grown incredibly fast. Philadelphia has a city council member from the "Working Families Party", a party to the left of the Democrats.
From the socialist perspective, having Sanders or Corbyn win would have been preferable, but there have been practical and tangible socialist victories. But I think that the losses feel worse than they actually are, because there was the potential for greater power that did not pan out.
What can we do to save it?
And what has been the instrument of it's decline?
I do know that in some western countries, like Mexico and the Nordic Countries, socialism has prevailed to an extent, so what has kept it going there but not in other places? (sorry about having to delete the poll, but this thread needed a major makeover.)
IMO, drop the aesthetics. Disavow the MLs and Soviet apologists. The Soviets were bad and lost the cold war. They are not a model that anybody outside of niche communities looks to. Venezuela is bad, don't defend their kleptocratic regime. Cuba has no appeal outside to anyone over 30. If this is your vision of socialism, there is no future for it and you will be continuously disappointed.
In the countries where socialism has been politically reasonably economically successful in the modern world, it hasn't been because the party members won by talking about how cool they think Rosa Luxemborg is. The social democrats in the Nordics focused on providing practical benefits to their supporters. They have been pragmatic in achieving their goals- where socialism works, they use socialist thought, and where markets are more efficient at achieving social democratic goals, they've used them to help deliver more socialist outcomes. I am not well versed in Mexican politics, but my understanding is that AMLO won by on focusing pressing issues in Mexican society, while his opponents didn't do enough to address them.
This has also been the success of socialism in the United States, both historically and recently. "Sewer Socialists" did very well in the Upper Midwest because they promised, then delivered, practical benefits to a broad enough swath of supporters to keep electoral power. Unions were a force in the United States because they delivered practical benefits to their members, and the economic structure of the time allowed them to build and wield that power. Bernie Sanders did well in 2016 because he attracted a broader coalition- people interested in his social-democratic reforms, and people who really didn't want Hillary Clinton. He obviously lost that election, but I would argue he did worse in 2020 because he failed to build beyond that base, and this time, Hillary wasn't running so he lost that leg of his coalition. His strategy for the nomination was always the Trump strategy- hope that the rest of the party is too divided, and win with your base even though it's not 51% of the party.
If socialists want to win, they need to broaden their appeal. That means focusing on the practical side of things, and above all, putting practicality and pragmatism above theory. Hire people who are committed to practicality, winning, and objective analysis, not hacks and sycophants.
by Steppe Khanate » Sun Aug 30, 2020 10:06 am
Steppe Khanate wrote:Picairn wrote:The irony here is that Scandinavian countries raise taxes on both the rich and the poor to pay for their programs. Sales tax in those nations are through the roof.
Sanders and his ilk can raise taxes on the topmost brackets without having too much impact on the poor. When I ask the question in my post, I do acknowledge that there have been strides made in taxing wealthier people instead of the poor. The thing is, the people who control most of the money in the country aren’t taxed when people like Bernie Sanders "raise taxes on the rich"
The people who have to pay more taxes in that case, are upper middle class and lower upper class people, you know, doctors, lawyers, middle management, etc. You know whose taxes aren't raised? Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, the highest 1% in general. The reason for that isn’t because the tax legislation is badly written, or the rich are exploiting some loophole or doing anything illegal, in fact, the way they avoid paying extra taxes is 100% legal. They use their debt to write off high taxes, then directly use the profits from their sources of income to pay off that debt, whilst maintaining a minimum in liabilities so that they are making a huge net gain in money.
Steppe News Network|Dushenger loses T. Council Seat to Uralistan newcomer Feshnork Errgosh|Khan Appoints new Attorney General, Dr. Shgon Khemesh|Khan signs royal decree to reduce heavy taxes in the Ulanbaatar City District
by Atheris » Sun Aug 30, 2020 12:20 pm
by Cisairse » Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:45 pm
by Bear Stearns » Sun Aug 30, 2020 3:59 pm
by Loben III » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:12 pm
Bear Stearns wrote:Drop the woke stuff and actually stand for American workers instead of disparaging them as deplorable rednecks.
by Kowani » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:23 pm
by Bear Stearns » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:24 pm
by Empirical Switzerland » Sun Aug 30, 2020 4:27 pm
News: Swiss Man uses 'Fonduethrower' on cow test-subject, lethality confirmed, Priest gets drunk on Blood of Christ, claims he just couldn't handle the Jesusness, and War with Tupeia deemed 'inevitable'.
by Cisairse » Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:26 pm
Empirical Switzerland wrote:As much as I do not want to be rude....
why?
Socialism is terrible, and the idea of everybody in unity is good, but making everybody basically poor, ruining the economy, and taking away people's personal business's make you happy?
by Empirical Switzerland » Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:27 pm
News: Swiss Man uses 'Fonduethrower' on cow test-subject, lethality confirmed, Priest gets drunk on Blood of Christ, claims he just couldn't handle the Jesusness, and War with Tupeia deemed 'inevitable'.
by Zedeshia » Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:28 pm
Empirical Switzerland wrote:As much as I do not want to be rude....
why?
Socialism is terrible, and the idea of everybody in unity is good, but making everybody basically poor, ruining the economy, and taking away people's personal business's make you happy?
by Cisairse » Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:30 pm
Empirical Switzerland wrote:Because dumb people exist in this world.
by Empirical Switzerland » Sun Aug 30, 2020 5:36 pm
News: Swiss Man uses 'Fonduethrower' on cow test-subject, lethality confirmed, Priest gets drunk on Blood of Christ, claims he just couldn't handle the Jesusness, and War with Tupeia deemed 'inevitable'.
by Farnhamia » Sun Aug 30, 2020 6:01 pm
by Duvniask » Mon Aug 31, 2020 1:42 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alvecia, Ariddia, Atrito, Eahland, East Leaf Republic, Emotional Support Crocodile, Ifreann, Likhinia, Oronatia, Pasong Tirad, Sublime Ottoman State 1800 RP, The Xenopolis Confederation
Advertisement