I love having arguments with liberals!

[Metacomet]

Oh today ran the gamut.

Today's discussion involved healthy use of the "human nature" argument. (what if someone in the factory wants more?)

A healthy dose of "The USSR wasn't free and was awful" (They used the word "evil) and it was going to "take over the world) And some vague argument about their was no social mobility there, and only the wealthy got to go to university? :confused: And no one could question anything.

They were also (apparently) less "checks and balances" on their nuclear weapons, hence they were more dangerous. No response to the question "Which country nuked Japan, I forgot?"

When asked what countries they invaded ala the USA they said "they did it from within"

Their space program also had sinister motives. While NASA was purely doing science.

:laugh: The PRC is/was equally awful They made people homeless for the Olympics for lord's sake! They also "mow down people in the streets!"

[Susurrus]

How do you have "checks and balances" on nukes?:confused:

[Metacomet]

How do you have "checks and balances" on nukes?:confused:


I don't get that part either.

Apparently since the USSR was a "Authoritarian" state, Mr. Premier could just flip a switch on his bedside table and nuke America.

Where as the U.S president couldn't. and was as the people I was arguing with said "less likely too, we just had them as a deterrent" I guess they supposed it was debated by the supreme court and brought to voters before use?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Haha...yeah,liberals have no idea what kind of crap they spew on a regular basis.It is always equal parts infuriating and funny when they try and say how many people "communism" killed while completely ignoring the fact that capitalism has,by far,killed many more people.

[gendoikari]

A healthy dose of "The USSR wasn't free and was awful" (They used the word "evil) and it was going to "take over the world) And some vague argument about their was no social mobility there, and only the wealthy got to go to university? And no one could question anything.

oh I didn't know the USSR was capitalist.

[Nox]

I feel sorry for liberals, everyone hates them, even fascists.

[Tommy4ever]

oh I didn't know the USSR was capitalist.

Really?

[o well this is ok I guess]

I don't get that part either.

Apparently since the USSR was a "Authoritarian" state, Mr. Premier could just flip a switch on his bedside table and nuke America.

Where as the U.S president couldn't. and was as the people I was arguing with said "less likely too, we just had them as a deterrent" I guess they supposed it was debated by the supreme court and brought to voters before use? "Mr. president, Mr President! The reds have launched their nuclear arsenal!"

"My god, we must retaliate! Run this through congress!"

[gendoikari]

Really?

it's called sarcastic humor. as in under capitalism that's how things work.

[Terminator X]

I don't like conservatives, but I fucking despise liberals.

[RadioRaheem84]

Liberals are worse because they believe themselves to be the happy medium between the two "extremes". They're ideology pushes them to think that they're the only people with real solutions and usually end up fucking a lot of things up, especially with their new Third Way crap.

[thesadmafioso]

On the question of higher education, it was open to any student who proved themselves academically capable and entrance was completely independent of ones individual wealth.

Students would actually be paid a stipend to attend school and were faced with almost non existent book and supply prices. Though what they were afforded was hardly enough to live on alone, it was still more than manageable. More importantly, this concept represented a far more advanced approach to education than that which is generally applied in capitalistic societies. As opposed to rationing out the highest quality of education to the wealthiest and forcing students on every level of the system to pay extensively to attain an education, it was seen as something to be given to those most able to apply it to society. And even then the students of university were paid to take courses, which surely assisted a tremendous number of students who would certainly of been deprived of this opportunity by educational institutions as they stand under capitalism.

And the whole social mobility line is just a result of their conditioning to capitalist thought; it is merely the result of their limited exposure to theory which exists outside of the sphere of the capitalist hegemony of cultural. They do not realize that there was no substantial degree of crushing poverty or social insecurity for individuals to be forced to contend with, and thus no need for the false illusion of attaining vast riches.

Soviet society did not operate under the principles of the crisis of free markets, thus it did not require the existence of this delusional thought in order to maintain itself. Social mobility existed, of course, just not in the sense where you would be able to rise to a then defunct class of the bourgeoisie. Soviet citizens would still be able to choose a profession of their choosing to a large extent and the freedom to alter this role was more than present. This is honestly nothing beyond a myth fabricated by a capitalist approach to historical analysis and there is no truth behind its intended value as crude propaganda.

For the question of space, the Soviet program did not once use its access to space for the purpose of its militarization whereas the US went on to make (then) serious proposals to establish an extensive net of SDI satellites with undeniable and direct military intent under Reagan. NASA has a record working with military contractors extensively to coordinate the launching of numerous military satellites, meaning that it is a complete fabrication to paint NASA as some grand bringer of peace while the Soviets were devising nefarious plots through their own programs. You can literally go on to NASA's own site and find information about military launches, though it will naturally be quite sparse. It is not as if that is some sort of secret.

But yeah, if my post were not indication of my thoughts enough, everything you were confronted with was incredibly infantile. It was quite literally based upon nothing but cold war propaganda. Congratulations on surviving that harrowing onslaught of liberal nonsense.

[Metacomet]

On the question of higher education, it was open to any student who proved themselves academically capable and entrance was completely independent of ones individual wealth.

Students would actually be paid a stipend to attend school and were faced with almost non existent book and supply prices. Though what they were afforded was hardly enough to live on alone, it was still more than manageable. More importantly, this concept represented a far more advanced approach to education than that which is generally applied in capitalistic societies. As opposed to rationing out the highest quality of education to the wealthiest and forcing students on every level of the system to pay extensively to attain an education, it was seen as something to be given to those most able to apply it to society. And even then the students of university were paid to take courses, which surely assisted a tremendous number of students who would certainly of been deprived of this opportunity by educational institutions as they stand under capitalism.

And the whole social mobility line is just a result of their conditioning to capitalist thought; it is merely the result of their limited exposure to theory which exists outside of the sphere of the capitalist hegemony of cultural. They do not realize that there was no substantial degree of crushing poverty or social insecurity for individuals to be forced to contend with, and thus no need for the false illusion of attaining vast riches.

Soviet society did not operate under the principles of the crisis of free markets, thus it did not require the existence of this delusional thought in order to maintain itself. Social mobility existed, of course, just not in the sense where you would be able to rise to a then defunct class of the bourgeoisie. Soviet citizens would still be able to choose a profession of their choosing to a large extent and the freedom to alter this role was more than present. This is honestly nothing beyond a myth fabricated by a capitalist approach to historical analysis and there is no truth behind its intended value as crude propaganda.

For the question of space, the Soviet program did not once use its access to space for the purpose of its militarization whereas the US went on to make (then) serious proposals to establish an extensive net of SDI satellites with undeniable and direct military intent under Reagan. NASA has a record working with military contractors extensively to coordinate the launching of numerous military satellites, meaning that it is a complete fabrication to paint NASA as some grand bringer of peace while the Soviets were devising nefarious plots through their own programs. You can literally go on to NASA's own site and find information about military launches, though it will naturally be quite sparse. It is not as if that is some sort of secret.

But yeah, if my post were not indication of my thoughts enough, everything you were confronted with was incredibly infantile. It was quite literally based upon nothing but cold war propaganda. Congratulations on surviving that harrowing onslaught of liberal nonsense.


You have a source (book to reference or something) for the Uni. info. I'd love to deliver the coup de grace.


Yea most of the conversation was "how I became so radical". And why I don't do something to better the world as opposed to "raging against the system". Which is what they say most leftists are, people who sit around with like minded people and complain.

[thesadmafioso]

You have a source (book to reference or something) for the Uni. info. I'd love to deliver the coup de grace.


Yea most of the conversation was "how I became so radical". And why I don't do something to better the world as opposed to "raging against the system". Which is what they say most leftists are, people who sit around with like minded people and complain.

Salisbury, Harrison E. Anatomy of the Soviet Union;. London: Nelson, 1967. Print.

It's a compilation of information on the domestic development of the Soviet Union as it stood at 1967 that was collected by a team of reporters from the New York Times. Overall it's a pretty decent and surprisingly unbiased collection of information on a multitude of areas of the internal affairs of the CCCP.

That has quite the apparent irony to it though, I would hardly say that mild reform to capitalism and individual activism in support of such does much to better the world.

[Ocean Seal]

Oh today ran the gamut.

Today's discussion involved healthy use of the "human nature" argument. (what if someone in the factory wants more?)

I don't feel like arguing this one again. Its actually fried my brain explaining it all these times.


A healthy dose of "The USSR wasn't free and was awful" (They used the word "evil) and it was going to "take over the world)

Yeah, thank God there isn't a country today with 700+ military bases outside of its general area. Hey at least its not involved in three ... oh yeah about that.



And some vague argument about their was no social mobility there, and only the wealthy got to go to university? :confused: And no one could question anything.

So it was feudal?




They were also (apparently) less "checks and balances" on their nuclear weapons, hence they were more dangerous. No response to the question "Which country nuked Japan, I forgot?"

US nuked Japan right before the war was over and they knew that they were going to win.
US planned to nuke China.
US planned to nuke Vietnam.



When asked what countries they invaded ala the USA they said "they did it from within"

Their space program also had sinister motives. While NASA was purely doing science.

Yep, it was a Soviet psy-ops team which started the revolutions of the third world, not the whole extreme poverty due to status as a neo-colony thing.



:laugh: The PRC is/was equally awful They made people homeless for the Olympics for lord's sake! They also "mow down people in the streets!"
Didn't the PRC have the Olympics not too long ago? You know when they were fully capitalist? And "mow down people in the streets" is probably a reference to Tienanmen square which was in 1989 you know when China was fully capitalist.

[Metacomet]

I figures it's an impossible argument. I mentioned all these things. The human nature argument and how if it was true we wouldn't have lasted past the ice age, I tried asking what countries the USSR invaded/nuked. No response was given. I'll try tomorrow.

[The Stalinator]

I figures it's an impossible argument. I mentioned all these things. The human nature argument and how if it was true we wouldn't have lasted past the ice age, I tried asking what countries the USSR invaded/nuked. No response was given. I'll try tomorrow.

My cousin gave me a good counter to the "human nature" argument today.

Humans can be instinctively greedy, that is true. Humans can also be instinctively collectivist. Humans thrive on socialization and collaboration. If we didn't, shit, why would we even bother with civilization in the first place?

Which one humans tend towards depends on which system is in place, you can stroke either. Capitalism strokes the greedy side of people, and so under capitalism, the vast majority of people have a dormant collectivist side. Communism strokes the collectivist side of people and brings out that instinct, and so the greedy side of most people would go dormant.

Makes a lot more sense than saying we are strictly meant to be one or the other.

[Le Socialiste]

My cousin gave me a good counter to the "human nature" argument today.

Humans can be instinctively greedy, that is true. Humans can also be instinctively collectivist. Humans thrive on socialization and collaboration. If we didn't, shit, why would we even bother with civilization in the first place?

Which one humans tend towards depends on which system is in place, you can stroke either. Capitalism strokes the greedy side of people, and so under capitalism, the vast majority of people have a dormant collectivist side. Communism strokes the collectivist side of people and brings out that instinct, and so the greedy side of most people would go dormant.

Makes a lot more sense than saying we are strictly meant to be one or the other.

I like that. It's a good point.

I had a conversation/debate with my liberal father a couple of days back, during which he said "I don't care what economic system we live under, so long as it works to ensure the wellbeing and equitable distribution of the world's resources to all people - not just a small minority." I was like 'Okay, sounds good,' when he suddenly said "I believe capitalism can do those things."

...

*facepalm*

[Thirsty Crow]

I had a conversation/debate with my liberal father a couple of days back, during which he said "I don't care what economic system we live under, so long as it works to ensure the wellbeing and equitable distribution of the world's resources to all people - not just a small minority." I was like 'Okay, sounds good,' when he suddenly said "I believe capitalism can do those things."

...

*facepalm*
You should have asked, under which conditions and under whose initiative? As well as: how come all the history testifies to the fact that not only were there "equitable distribution of 'resources' for all people", but there is also a growing conctration of wealth into few hands.