Barothmuk

From memory... Whether something is socialism isn't determined by economics but by level of "government control in people's lives". Republican social policies are socialistic. The Nazis were socialist. Keynesian economics aren't capitalist and so on.

I suppose post WWII France or Britain during WWII weren't capitalist either. Good lord. I wasn't debating with you at all. Your understanding of economics is laughable.

Was somehow less enjoyable than Oblivion. That was quite the achievement.

Finally got my hands on Mortal Kombat 9. Easily the best since 3. Probably better than the original trilogy.

Lol, oh wow. To quote myself from these boards:

I know the U.S is bad, but they're not fascist.

Good god I think I’m talking with a libertarian. Good golly gosh. Wage-slavery, over production, uneven distribution and mass exploitation simply DO NOT EXIST because this seemingly affluent person can grow some ****ing vegetables. Hallelujah. Shame nobody informed the Russians. Could have saved us a lot of trouble. And in glorious free capitalist society we are at the mercy of the rich (who control the big bad boogie man “the state”) to work for menial wages to eat food. You think wrong. The statistic you are referencing comes from “The Black Book of Communism” whose death toll clocks out at 94 million. The book itself was absolutely savaged for its intellectual poverty with the authors themselves later admitting they had inflated the statistics because they wanted to reach that 100 million figure. Worth noting is when you apply the methodology used to acquire that 94 million figure to capitalism you get well over a billion deaths. Personally I think arguments based on death tolls aren’t the best way to go about it. I never said capitalism forbids private property. How on Earth did you make that conclusion

I couldn't tell what you'd constitute as "bodily" control. Replace marriage with sex and my half-arsed 'rebuttal' stands. Tbh that was probably the least important part of the post and discussion anyway. Then you are 100% wrong. The existence of private property in the hands of the few exists and persists solely due to its non-existence in the hands of the many. No, food isn't "pro-starvation", rather it is the system that over produces food, unevenly distributes it and demands that people can only acquire it by selling their labour that is "pro-starvation".

Thus you realise this has absolutely nothing to do with the socialist's opposition to private property and thus opposition to abortion has little to do with socialism, yes? Evidently these government restrictions made their property null. Worthless. Can't own anything if the "government's controlling your body". From what I gather you seem to be under the impression support for property in any form is "capitalist" and to deprive others of property in any form is to be anti-capitalist. This rationale is exceptionally fallacious because the overwhelming majority of people (the "99%" if you will) do not have private property. Does this mean capitalism is anti-capitalist for depriving these people of property?

Oh god... Wat. Are you under the impression a woman's body constitutes private property? Do you know what private property means? Umm, yes? Are you under the impression that the wealthy industrialists 100 years prior were poor oppressed folk with no property because the government didn't allow gay marriage. This thread man. This thread.

Not to be mean but that's pretty ****ing dumb. By this logic the Republicans are being "socialist" for trying to restrict women from getting abortions or opposing gay marriage. When determining capitalism or socialism you look at the economy not vague notions of "the government controlling people's lives".

I meant his racism.

So not dead, just "marginalized" and "irrelevant" (the latter of course being incorrect). Our argument was one of semantics. They're as bad as each other.

I'd certainly say this is quite naïve or at least ignorant. There's been the 'success' of the Nepalese Maoists in 08, there's once again an increase in Naxalite activity in India, people running around with red flags in Greece and so on. I do not expect these groups to "overthrow capitalism" or what have you however seeing that the "post-war boom" is long over I think its safe to predict that there will be a continued shift to the far-left and the far-right amongst large chunks of the population. We can already see it happening now in Europe.

Eh, I'd hardly call what we're doing debating. But sure, I'll make a comment in your thread and leave it at that.

Oh please do. Couldn't possibly be the efforts of the counter labour movements, the fear of the riff-raff getting out of hand or the prime imperial powers being able to exploit cheap labour from abroad. Nope, just the glorious rich working for the benefit of all.

Oh how silly of me to forget about the glorious time when capitalism wasn't reliant on keeping wages low, worker exploitation 'profits' high and funnelling wealth into the hands of a few. Gosh darn that new capitalism, ahem "corporatism".

That's capitalism.

According to one questionable study with a sample size of 177. Good thing this isn't my point at all. I don't believe porn targets women who have low self-esteem or only those with low self-esteem become porn-stars. Rather, pornography (i.e. the content porn studios produce) is an exploitive industry that typically hires women from lower socio-economic backgrounds and subjects them to abuse, degradation and rape. For every so-called "success story" there's thousands of failures who are subject to the abuse in those quotes and make little from it.

No but there are plenty who support these professions as "pro-woman" and "empowering"*. Surely you're aware of the dichotomies between the "second" and "third" waves or so-called "sex-negative" verse "sex-positive" feminisms and are not simply reducing numerous interpretations of practice and theory within the feminist movement into one incredibly crude caricature. *I do not. Jenna Jameson: ”Most girls get their first experience in gonzo films – in which they’re taken to a crappy studio apartment in Mission Hills and penetrated in every hole possible by some abusive **** who thinks her name is Bitch.” Alexa James: ”The first shoot I did was with a man who was probably 40 and he was as thick as a soda can. He held me down and shoved it in me with no lube tearing my vagina. When I started to tear up and cry he flipped me over and continued from behind be so they wouldn’t get me crying on film. He pulled my hair and choked me over and over again even when I told him it hurt and I could barely breathe.” Andi Anderson: "After a year or so of that so-called “glamorous” life, I sadly discovered that drugs and drinking were a part of the lifestyle. I began to drink and party out of control! Cocaine, alcohol and ecstasy were my favorites. Before long, I turned into a person I did not want to be. After doing so many hardcore scenes I couldn’t do it anymore. I just remember being in horrible situations and experiencing extreme depression and being alone and sad.” Jessie Jewels: ”People in the porn industry are numb to real life and are like zombies walking around. The abuse that goes on in this industry is completely ridiculous. The way these young ladies are treated is totally sick and brainwashing. I left due to the trauma I experienced even though I was there only a short time.” Genevieve: ”I had bodily fluids all over my face that had to stay on my face for ten minutes. The abuse and degradation was rough. I sweated and was in deep pain. On top of the horrifying experience, my whole body ached, and I was irritable the whole day. The director didn’t really care how I felt; he only wanted to finish the video.” Jessi Summers: ”I also did a scene where I was put with male talent that was on my no list. I wanted to please them so I did it. He put his foot on my head and stepped on it while he was doing me from behind. I freaked out and started balling; they stopped filming and sent me home with reduced pay since they got some shot but not the whole scene. And so on.

Haha, oh wow. This thread.

Indeed

Oh you.

Err, no. Nostalgia for the Soviet Union amongst the former Soviet states (and satellites) is pretty common knowledge so I picked from the first article I found. It'd be nice if it did also show the opinions those 4 countries had on the dissolution of the Soviet Union however that was by no means necessary to disprove your point. You said 90% of people hated it. This is evidently wrong. Now for those countries not mentioned East-Germany, and to a much lesser extent Poland, have a concept known as Ostalgie which refers to the cultural phenomenon of missing the late Soviet system and Yugoslavia is quite well known for its continued reverence for Tito. Now because I get the feeling some are being a little thick, this is not support for the late Soviet style system nor its leaders, I'm merely pointing out your historical and cultural ignorance.