Test for the rightwing: tell me the differences between the far left and the moderate left

[Billy000]

I gave you google so you wouldn't be saying; That's a rw hack site therefore it's not true!

but it is true.

So if a crime is small, fuck it, there shouldn't be any rules to avoid fraud during the most important events in government


do lies and bullshit come that easily to you?

Lol it shouldn't be hard for you to find an unbiased source if this topic has any merit.

all of google fucknut, all of google.

you asked a question, I gave you pinpoint answers, but you hate the truth and must deny it.

I've tried to find anything on "all of google" backing up your claims, all I find are right wing sites with paywalls and ads all over the page claiming Obama is going to put everyone in FEMA camps.

I'm curious. What is the income distribution and type of economy in the socialist state you prefer?

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

 

[Steinlight]

I'm curious. What is the income distribution and type of economy in the socialist state you prefer?

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

You want to get rid of the state, but make sure it gives you everything first, cool story bro.

If you actually read my post, you would see that I prefer a stateless society, but if the state exists, I would like the state, run by the people, to do the above. Keep pushing the "narrative" of giving things, as if it's a bad thing.

So you are bipolar. You ideally want one thing, but it the mean time, you will settle for the polar opposite.

Without a State, how do you plan to force to make people provide you these things? This is the folly of socialism, it never gets past the stage of totalitarianism needed to expropriate the means of production from private hands to provide all these services. The result is a economically stagnant and politically oppressive tyranny.

Sure steinlight, ignore the free ukraine, the paris commune, the anarchists in spain, the modern day worker co-ops, the majority of human history where we lived in virtually "communist" societies. You keep saying the word force, and you keep assuming that structures won't be in place without a state, in reference, a state is prone to corruption, which is why the people need to consistently watch the state and control it. "Folly of socialism" Already addressed this.

No one is ignoring your failed stateless societies. Also, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding up the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish as paragons of virtue and non-violence, particularly against the Church and land owners. If you want to go off to the middle of no where and start a free and voluntary socialist society, be my guest, just leave the rest of us alone. But that's the thing, all you so called "anarcho-socialists" are just like the Communists you claim to differ from. Since you know very well you won't get your stateless pipe dream, the rest of us have to live in your state socialist dystopia.

 

[Socialist]

Lol it shouldn't be hard for you to find an unbiased source if this topic has any merit.

all of google fucknut, all of google.

you asked a question, I gave you pinpoint answers, but you hate the truth and must deny it.

I've tried to find anything on "all of google" backing up your claims, all I find are right wing sites with paywalls and ads all over the page claiming Obama is going to put everyone in FEMA camps.

I'm curious. What is the income distribution and type of economy in the socialist state you prefer?

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

 

[Socialist]

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

You want to get rid of the state, but make sure it gives you everything first, cool story bro.

If you actually read my post, you would see that I prefer a stateless society, but if the state exists, I would like the state, run by the people, to do the above. Keep pushing the "narrative" of giving things, as if it's a bad thing.

So you are bipolar. You ideally want one thing, but it the mean time, you will settle for the polar opposite.

Without a State, how do you plan to force to make people provide you these things? This is the folly of socialism, it never gets past the stage of totalitarianism needed to expropriate the means of production from private hands to provide all these services. The result is a economically stagnant and politically oppressive tyranny.

Sure steinlight, ignore the free ukraine, the paris commune, the anarchists in spain, the modern day worker co-ops, the majority of human history where we lived in virtually "communist" societies. You keep saying the word force, and you keep assuming that structures won't be in place without a state, in reference, a state is prone to corruption, which is why the people need to consistently watch the state and control it. "Folly of socialism" Already addressed this.

No one is ignoring your failed stateless societies. Also, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding up the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish as paragons of virtue and non-violence, particularly against the Church and land owners. If you want to go off to the middle of no where and start a free and voluntary socialist society, be my guest, just leave the rest of us alone. But that's the thing, all you so called "anarcho-socialists" are just like the Communists you claim to differ from. Since you know very well you won't get your stateless pipe dream, the rest of us have to live in your state socialist dystopia.

I never said non-violence was the only way these things could happen, but I do realize the context of things that occur, and the conditions in spain were entirely suitable, and violence was truly the only way for the working class to establish the societies they did. Yeah, yeah, sure we are. Grow up.

 

[Billy000]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

Trick question there is no moderate left.

There absolutely is a moderate.

Regulations are a good example. Moderate liberals prefer less regulation on the market. Far left liberals prefer wider regulation in the market.

A moderate would be for Obama's healthcare plan because capitalism is still large part of the healthcare system. A far left liberal would prefer universal healthcare.

Moderate liberals would prefer tax cuts for the middle class. A far left liberal would not want tax cuts of any kind (depending)

 

[Billy000]

all of google fucknut, all of google.

you asked a question, I gave you pinpoint answers, but you hate the truth and must deny it.

I've tried to find anything on "all of google" backing up your claims, all I find are right wing sites with paywalls and ads all over the page claiming Obama is going to put everyone in FEMA camps.

I'm curious. What is the income distribution and type of economy in the socialist state you prefer?

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

 

[Steinlight]

You want to get rid of the state, but make sure it gives you everything first, cool story bro.

If you actually read my post, you would see that I prefer a stateless society, but if the state exists, I would like the state, run by the people, to do the above. Keep pushing the "narrative" of giving things, as if it's a bad thing.

So you are bipolar. You ideally want one thing, but it the mean time, you will settle for the polar opposite.

Without a State, how do you plan to force to make people provide you these things? This is the folly of socialism, it never gets past the stage of totalitarianism needed to expropriate the means of production from private hands to provide all these services. The result is a economically stagnant and politically oppressive tyranny.

Sure steinlight, ignore the free ukraine, the paris commune, the anarchists in spain, the modern day worker co-ops, the majority of human history where we lived in virtually "communist" societies. You keep saying the word force, and you keep assuming that structures won't be in place without a state, in reference, a state is prone to corruption, which is why the people need to consistently watch the state and control it. "Folly of socialism" Already addressed this.

No one is ignoring your failed stateless societies. Also, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding up the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish as paragons of virtue and non-violence, particularly against the Church and land owners. If you want to go off to the middle of no where and start a free and voluntary socialist society, be my guest, just leave the rest of us alone. But that's the thing, all you so called "anarcho-socialists" are just like the Communists you claim to differ from. Since you know very well you won't get your stateless pipe dream, the rest of us have to live in your state socialist dystopia.

I never said non-violence was the only way these things could happen, but I do realize the context of things that occur, and the conditions in spain were entirely suitable, and violence was truly the only way for the working class to establish the societies they did. Yeah, yeah, sure we are. Grow up.

Hey, as a member of the "Far Right", I am all for violence against anarchists and reds like you who want to implement revolution, just don't pretend you aren't using force and implementing a totalitarian society to pursue your ends.

LOL at an "anarcho-socialist" telling people to grow up.

 

[Socialist]

I've tried to find anything on "all of google" backing up your claims, all I find are right wing sites with paywalls and ads all over the page claiming Obama is going to put everyone in FEMA camps.

I'm curious. What is the income distribution and type of economy in the socialist state you prefer?

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

 

[Socialist]

If you actually read my post, you would see that I prefer a stateless society, but if the state exists, I would like the state, run by the people, to do the above. Keep pushing the "narrative" of giving things, as if it's a bad thing.

So you are bipolar. You ideally want one thing, but it the mean time, you will settle for the polar opposite.

Without a State, how do you plan to force to make people provide you these things? This is the folly of socialism, it never gets past the stage of totalitarianism needed to expropriate the means of production from private hands to provide all these services. The result is a economically stagnant and politically oppressive tyranny.

Sure steinlight, ignore the free ukraine, the paris commune, the anarchists in spain, the modern day worker co-ops, the majority of human history where we lived in virtually "communist" societies. You keep saying the word force, and you keep assuming that structures won't be in place without a state, in reference, a state is prone to corruption, which is why the people need to consistently watch the state and control it. "Folly of socialism" Already addressed this.

No one is ignoring your failed stateless societies. Also, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding up the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish as paragons of virtue and non-violence, particularly against the Church and land owners. If you want to go off to the middle of no where and start a free and voluntary socialist society, be my guest, just leave the rest of us alone. But that's the thing, all you so called "anarcho-socialists" are just like the Communists you claim to differ from. Since you know very well you won't get your stateless pipe dream, the rest of us have to live in your state socialist dystopia.

I never said non-violence was the only way these things could happen, but I do realize the context of things that occur, and the conditions in spain were entirely suitable, and violence was truly the only way for the working class to establish the societies they did. Yeah, yeah, sure we are. Grow up.

Hey, as a member of the "Far Right", I am all for violence against anarchists and reds like you who want to implement revolution, just don't pretend you aren't using force and implementing a totalitarian society to pursue your ends.

LOL at an "anarcho-socialist" telling people to grow up.

I don't advocate violent revolution, however, if the conditions are of that in a place like Bangladesh, violent revolution is what must occur. In america or another first world country? Violent revolution is only feasible if the revolutionary conditions reach a certain point. "Totalitarian society" Back to the paris commune, the free ukraine, catalonia.. Yeah, capitalist societies run by capitalists aren't totalitarian.

 

[Billy000]

I'm curious. What is the income distribution and type of economy in the socialist state you prefer?

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

 

[Steinlight]

So you are bipolar. You ideally want one thing, but it the mean time, you will settle for the polar opposite.

Without a State, how do you plan to force to make people provide you these things? This is the folly of socialism, it never gets past the stage of totalitarianism needed to expropriate the means of production from private hands to provide all these services. The result is a economically stagnant and politically oppressive tyranny.

Sure steinlight, ignore the free ukraine, the paris commune, the anarchists in spain, the modern day worker co-ops, the majority of human history where we lived in virtually "communist" societies. You keep saying the word force, and you keep assuming that structures won't be in place without a state, in reference, a state is prone to corruption, which is why the people need to consistently watch the state and control it. "Folly of socialism" Already addressed this.

No one is ignoring your failed stateless societies. Also, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding up the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish as paragons of virtue and non-violence, particularly against the Church and land owners. If you want to go off to the middle of no where and start a free and voluntary socialist society, be my guest, just leave the rest of us alone. But that's the thing, all you so called "anarcho-socialists" are just like the Communists you claim to differ from. Since you know very well you won't get your stateless pipe dream, the rest of us have to live in your state socialist dystopia.

I never said non-violence was the only way these things could happen, but I do realize the context of things that occur, and the conditions in spain were entirely suitable, and violence was truly the only way for the working class to establish the societies they did. Yeah, yeah, sure we are. Grow up.

Hey, as a member of the "Far Right", I am all for violence against anarchists and reds like you who want to implement revolution, just don't pretend you aren't using force and implementing a totalitarian society to pursue your ends.

LOL at an "anarcho-socialist" telling people to grow up.

I don't advocate violent revolution, however, if the conditions are of that in a place like Bangladesh, violent revolution is what must occur. In america or another first world country? Violent revolution is only feasible if the revolutionary conditions reach a certain point. "Totalitarian society" Back to the paris commune, the free ukraine, catalonia.. Yeah, capitalist societies run by capitalists aren't totalitarian.

See, you are all over the place, you claim to be against the state, but want to use it the control the means of production in the mean time, you oppose violent revolution against property owners, but are willing to use it to achieve your ends when you support failed "anarcho-socialist" societies the paris commune, "free ukraine" and "free catalonia" (except for property owners, clergy, and political opponents).

Just have some balls and admit that if we aren't willing to voluntarily hand over the means of production, you are willing to use the state and/or violent revolution to achieve your ends. Be honest, so us fascists can have you on our shit list for the labor camps.

 

[Socialist]

Sure steinlight, ignore the free ukraine, the paris commune, the anarchists in spain, the modern day worker co-ops, the majority of human history where we lived in virtually "communist" societies. You keep saying the word force, and you keep assuming that structures won't be in place without a state, in reference, a state is prone to corruption, which is why the people need to consistently watch the state and control it. "Folly of socialism" Already addressed this.

No one is ignoring your failed stateless societies. Also, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding up the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish as paragons of virtue and non-violence, particularly against the Church and land owners. If you want to go off to the middle of no where and start a free and voluntary socialist society, be my guest, just leave the rest of us alone. But that's the thing, all you so called "anarcho-socialists" are just like the Communists you claim to differ from. Since you know very well you won't get your stateless pipe dream, the rest of us have to live in your state socialist dystopia.

I never said non-violence was the only way these things could happen, but I do realize the context of things that occur, and the conditions in spain were entirely suitable, and violence was truly the only way for the working class to establish the societies they did. Yeah, yeah, sure we are. Grow up.

Hey, as a member of the "Far Right", I am all for violence against anarchists and reds like you who want to implement revolution, just don't pretend you aren't using force and implementing a totalitarian society to pursue your ends.

LOL at an "anarcho-socialist" telling people to grow up.

I don't advocate violent revolution, however, if the conditions are of that in a place like Bangladesh, violent revolution is what must occur. In america or another first world country? Violent revolution is only feasible if the revolutionary conditions reach a certain point. "Totalitarian society" Back to the paris commune, the free ukraine, catalonia.. Yeah, capitalist societies run by capitalists aren't totalitarian.

See, you are all over the place, you claim to be against the state, but want to use it the control the means of production in the mean time, you oppose violent revolution against property owners, but are willing to use it to achieve your ends when you support failed "anarcho-socialist" societies the paris commune, "free ukraine" and "free catalonia" (except for property owners, clergy, and political opponents).

Just have some balls and admit that if we aren't willing to voluntarily hand over the means of production, you are willing to use the state and/or violent revolution to achieve your ends. Be honest, so us fascists can have you on our shit list for the labor camps.

So you've admitted you're a fascist. /thread Think what you want, learn to comprehend my posts first.

 

[jon_berzerk]

a moderate lefty has left the party long ago

 

[Socialist]

I would love to see a society that has gotten past the point of having a state, but that's a pipe dream not possible in today's context. I think the platform of eugene debs is what I am looking at, I want workers to own production, I am a strong advocate of worker co-ops, welfare, universal healthcare, free education, putting labor into power, I want to remove the influence capitalists have on the state, I want the state, if it exists, to be controlled by the working class through democracy. Outlining an entire plan for a state in a forum post is quite difficult,

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

 

[Steinlight]

No one is ignoring your failed stateless societies. Also, if I were you, I wouldn't be holding up the anarchists in Spain during the Spanish as paragons of virtue and non-violence, particularly against the Church and land owners. If you want to go off to the middle of no where and start a free and voluntary socialist society, be my guest, just leave the rest of us alone. But that's the thing, all you so called "anarcho-socialists" are just like the Communists you claim to differ from. Since you know very well you won't get your stateless pipe dream, the rest of us have to live in your state socialist dystopia.

I never said non-violence was the only way these things could happen, but I do realize the context of things that occur, and the conditions in spain were entirely suitable, and violence was truly the only way for the working class to establish the societies they did. Yeah, yeah, sure we are. Grow up.

Hey, as a member of the "Far Right", I am all for violence against anarchists and reds like you who want to implement revolution, just don't pretend you aren't using force and implementing a totalitarian society to pursue your ends.

LOL at an "anarcho-socialist" telling people to grow up.

I don't advocate violent revolution, however, if the conditions are of that in a place like Bangladesh, violent revolution is what must occur. In america or another first world country? Violent revolution is only feasible if the revolutionary conditions reach a certain point. "Totalitarian society" Back to the paris commune, the free ukraine, catalonia.. Yeah, capitalist societies run by capitalists aren't totalitarian.

See, you are all over the place, you claim to be against the state, but want to use it the control the means of production in the mean time, you oppose violent revolution against property owners, but are willing to use it to achieve your ends when you support failed "anarcho-socialist" societies the paris commune, "free ukraine" and "free catalonia" (except for property owners, clergy, and political opponents).

Just have some balls and admit that if we aren't willing to voluntarily hand over the means of production, you are willing to use the state and/or violent revolution to achieve your ends. Be honest, so us fascists can have you on our shit list for the labor camps.

So you've admitted you're a fascist. /thread Think what you want, learn to comprehend my posts first.

I comprehend your posts, you are a walking contradiction as is your entire ideology, a confused kid that hasn't gotten beyond past first grade level morality of "share with me, its not fair he has more, were all equal, blah blah blah", and giving examples of failed and tyrannical societies as some blueprint for the future.

 

[Socialist]

I never said non-violence was the only way these things could happen, but I do realize the context of things that occur, and the conditions in spain were entirely suitable, and violence was truly the only way for the working class to establish the societies they did. Yeah, yeah, sure we are. Grow up.

Hey, as a member of the "Far Right", I am all for violence against anarchists and reds like you who want to implement revolution, just don't pretend you aren't using force and implementing a totalitarian society to pursue your ends.

LOL at an "anarcho-socialist" telling people to grow up.

I don't advocate violent revolution, however, if the conditions are of that in a place like Bangladesh, violent revolution is what must occur. In america or another first world country? Violent revolution is only feasible if the revolutionary conditions reach a certain point. "Totalitarian society" Back to the paris commune, the free ukraine, catalonia.. Yeah, capitalist societies run by capitalists aren't totalitarian.

See, you are all over the place, you claim to be against the state, but want to use it the control the means of production in the mean time, you oppose violent revolution against property owners, but are willing to use it to achieve your ends when you support failed "anarcho-socialist" societies the paris commune, "free ukraine" and "free catalonia" (except for property owners, clergy, and political opponents).

Just have some balls and admit that if we aren't willing to voluntarily hand over the means of production, you are willing to use the state and/or violent revolution to achieve your ends. Be honest, so us fascists can have you on our shit list for the labor camps.

So you've admitted you're a fascist. /thread Think what you want, learn to comprehend my posts first.

I comprehend your posts, you are a walking contradiction as is your entire ideology, a confused kid that hasn't gotten beyond past first grade level morality of "share with me, its not fair he has more, were all equal, blah blah blah", and giving examples of failed and tyrannical societies as some blueprint for the future.

Keep spewing unfounded rhetoric.

 

[AntiParty]

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I want you to name specific issues regarding the differences between more liberal polices and centrist policies. Don't give me some vague paragraph of fluff. I want specifics. Deconstruct the political issues and compare and contrast. A bonus would be naming leftwing politicians and breaking down their platforms.

Lets break this down even more. Compare more radical progressive polices to more moderate ones in regards to economics, social issues, and the role of government.

I predict that most of you can't rise to the occasion on this test of mine.

Liberal means "more of'. Central, does not mean more of. Lesson complete.

 

[AntiParty]

So would you prefer capitalism so long as it did not influence the state? What would be the income distribution? Would there be any wealthy class?

I would prefer a society without capitalism, or more so, private ownership of production for the profit of an individual, I want a society where production is tailored to the needs of the people, by the people, through democratic control. Income distribution? Progressive taxation, if the abstract value of money still exists. A wealthy class? I want everyone to be fed, sheltered, clothed, given access to healthcare.. If you refer to wealthy as material ownership, sure, that would still exist, but in reference to one owning billions while millions struggle to feed themselves? No, that wouldn't exist.

Ok so the state would own the market? Wouldn't it not be feasible that the state could pay for a wealthy class and be the only source of revenue for the country? I am all for more socialization in our current state and keeping money out of politics, but the idea of not having a private market doesn't seem realistic.

The state would not own the market, the market would be utilized as a tool to provide for the people, not for profit. I don't see how the state would do that if the people had control of it and capitalists weren't running rampant. Of course private markets would still exist, nothing is perfect.

But you must admit that profit is critical for having a sustainable economy. There would have to be individuals benefiting from it and becoming more wealthy. This allows them to produce, We need a profiting wealthy class. I would, of course, just suggest that there be ironclad caps on personal wealth and there must be laws guaranteeing fair wages for the lower classes.

The entire concept of "profit" wouldn't be relevant in a socialist framework, nor would the concept of wealth in reference to abstract value.

The only difference between Socialism and Capitalism is the Government owns Industry in Socialism. The people still run it either way.

Look at Austrailia. Home of Faux News founder Rupert Merdoch.

You can still buy politicians in Austrailia Socialism. The only thing that changed is the amount of power Politicians have.

Seems the focus should be more against politician pay-off's. Not our entire way of life.

 

[Kosh]

moderate left knew that raising the debt passed $6 Trillion was unamerican
prog left thinks spending more and more and more and more is a great idea and everyone that doesn't agree is a racist

moderate left supports the 2nd Amendment with restrictions on our rights
prog left wants to limit our right to plastic child safe sporks.

moderate left doesn't know just how evil partial birth abortion is so they support it.
prog left wants post birth abortion

mod left wants to prevent voter fraud but is gutless to pass rules
prog left wants anyone that's inside our boarders to vote dem


anything specific you would like me to explain or do you understand that dems are not liberals anymore?

"moderate left knew that raising the debt passed $6 Trillion was unamerican
prog left thinks spending more and more and more and more is a great idea and everyone that doesn't agree is a racist"

Thats the best post considering a Bush President with a GOP Congress actually brought debt past $6trillion...

Foot must be placed firmly in the mouth...

Obama added more than $6T in his first 5 years. WHy arent you objecting?

I was not the one which was bitching...

I was just pointing out that one of your RWers was complaining about 'raising the debt passed $6 Trillion was unamerican' when it was GOP who did it...

Yet another far left drone!

I see someone is "stalker" mode again..

 

[Kosh]

The difference?

I don't care. You are all a cancer on our nation.

Your reference to "Cancer" is moronic, considering the ideas of the left wing have brought forth considerable labor power in this country, women's rights, gay rights, abortion rights, social security, food stamps, social welfare programs that have unanimously been proven to reduce poverty, meanwhile, the right wing for the past 40 years in this country has consistently worked to destroy the representation of the laborer, women's rights, screw those in poverty, spread literal non-sense about the working class and perpetuate the myth that lower taxes on the rich create more jobs for the laborer. It sickens me.

I smell far left propaganda in this post!

And a lot of revisionist history..