This thread is permanently archived
What are your actual political believes??
| Btw believes is an alternate spelling, dont bust my balls
| Oh I'll bust your balls alright. ;)
| Well as a communist and a capitalist and an anarchist, my beliefs are pretty mainstream for the most part.
| >>340271
Beeing a capitalist does not necessarily mean one does believe in capitalism as a political ideology (which usually is nothing but a bunch of lies). It could just mean one owns capital.
There are these kind of capitalists that sell you the string you hang them up with.
| Post-Leftist/Nihilist Anarchist
I want societal collapse and lawlessness.
| Kybernetic transhuman space communist here!
Prepare and make sure to survive the next big capitalist destruction-orgy. On the ashes of capitalism and its rotten children (nazism, racism, fascism and religious fundamentalism) we will build a new, a better, fairer and future oriented society. Just make sure to survive the collapse. And don't try to stop it. It'll be just temporary pause it, while the bang becomes bigger and bigger. Survive and prepare!
| >>343858
It's no joke. Capitalism and racism are connected to each other. It's no coincidence they came up at the same time. Ideological both are based on wrong assumptions like social darwinism. They proclaim a pseudo-scientific, reduced mechanistic or biologistic view on human beeings. At least racism ever was pushed by the capitalist class in a "divide and conquer" strategy to fool the lower bourgeoisie and working class. Race struggle is better than class struggle for the caps.
| >>343858 >>344258
A very special example for the tight relation between capitalism and racism is antisemitism. In medieval europe Jews were persecuted in the name of religion (christ murderer). This is called antijudaism. It already played a role that jews had to live from trade or lending money (they weren't allowed doing handcraft and were able to read and write) However, when capitalism came up with the industrial revolution (driven by colonization) and christian church lost...
| >>344268
...it's information monopoly to science, it was also the beginning of mechanistic and biologistic pseudo-science like racism. Based on that antisemitism became the racist successor of the religious antijudasism. An as we know from german history, antisemitism was successful in countering anti-capitalist worker movements. The nazis managed to spread the lie that capitalism and the antagonizing socialism were both invented by jews to destroy a "german race".
| >>344338
Btw. the last thing is quite popular in the alt-right movement, which says that (global) capitalism and (international) communism belong to a evil conspiracy to destroy "the white race". But these times it's a new form of antisemitism which exclude jews but puts in muslims instead. Actually there is a fight between the old and the new right who to blame for the world wide mess that is in fact caused by world wide capitalism.
| 0d9ba8 You use Social Darwinism as an argument in the Middle Ages. That makes no sense. Even in your arguments, that makes no sense. There was no evolutionary theory. Biology only really started to take off during the renaissance and even then it took centuries till people started to accept it. How do you make such ahistoric arguments?
I'll keep going. Read some Thomas Kuhn. Marx and Lenin have not explained a thing about scientific theory and how it functions.
| 0d9ba8 Since you don't seem very intelligent I'll summarize some of the things Kuhn talks about. He speaks of dominant scientific theories at a specific time. That dominant theory thus creates laws that explain the phenomenon related to it. After that someone objects this theory and disproves it. The very basis that it has to be a law means that it has to be absolute. Thus when the scientific law is disproven, it falls apart. There's a search for a new theory to explain reality.
| This process is not necessarily cumulative either. There's a lot of fallacy in people that speak of pseudo-scientific claims. A new scientific theory that appears might not inherent a single thing from the first one in its denial. Usually the case is that a very small fraction of the previous scientific theory will make it out to the next. And while you could speak of Christianity as a scientific theory, it's more fair to say that it's Greek theories still used by that time.
| 0d9ba8 I know you're probably someone baiting but so much bullshit in a few posts has to be rebutted.
| >>70df11
Your blahblah is neither consistent nor coherent. It lacks of logic and shows you did not understand what >>0d9ba8 was writing about. You also attacked him personally ("you're not intelligent") and end up making a clown of yourself.
| >>345373 You haven't addressed my points. I attack people after making points. Explain to me in what ways it isn't coherent, please.
| >>345646
We'll that's a lot of work. I don't no where to start... Well one after another:
>You use Social Darwinism as an argument in the Middle Ages.
Who is "you"? Or when were middle-ages to you? This statement makes no sense or at least it's not clear to what it refers.
>Marx and Lenin have not explained a thing about scientific theory and how it functions.
Well at first you should distinguish between Marx and Lenin. Or are you a "marxist-leninist"?
| >>345646
>I'll summarize some of the things Kuhn talks about.
>blahblah dominant theory
>blablah oversimplified and naive knowledge theory
Scientific knowledge is not only about believing in something until someone proves it false. It's also about verification, usability, modularity, extendability and transparency. In science it doesn't happen that something is totally wrong or the opposite of what actually is. It's about extending theories that turned out beeing insufficient.
| Progressivism good
Fascism and corporatism bad
Delete all billionaires
Delete all religion
Make everyone nice
| >>345661 The anon, or it seems like it's you apparently, used the argument that Capitalism is Social-Darwinistic. I very quickly refuted that simply because Darwin theory is in very late modern history. You can't just equate that during the Middle Ages. It's especially more complicated because of the different situations in the different parts of Europe. Each had a specific context related to it and parts of Western Europe were very wealthy at that time. Fact.
| >>345675 Also glad you couldn't refute or read through those points. Kuhn is a physicist by the way. What he demonstrates through this work is that knowledge is not necessarily extending ad infinitum. One scientific idea can completely be cut off if the other one is superior in every regard. If you want an example, look at the germ theory and how it was reached. Almost nothing of the previous ideas remained at the end when germs were discovered as a concept.
| >>346250 Also, a bit of a bonus for your sick Marxist mind. Social sciences have to constantly destroy theories in order to make them usable. That is because every case is specific and unique. If you're trying to prove your theory when studying a social phenomena, you're already skewing your point of view and trying to prove an opinion moreso than understanding a social reality.
But of course, I just say blah blah blah because I don't say the same repeated 10 lines over and over.
| >>346247
Capitalist ideology and Darwinism came pretty much up at the same time. I distinguish here between capitalism as a economic system (which started with industrial revolution replacing feudalism) and as an ideology.
| >>346247
>Each had a specific context related to it and parts of Western Europe were very wealthy at that time. Fact.
At what time? Who were "parts of western europe" exactly (the people)?
| >>346250
>look at the germ theory and how it was reached. Almost nothing of the previous ideas remained at the end when germs were discovered as a concept.
Well wow, what? Germ theory still is correct! Or do you think diseases are transmited by evil energy?
| >>346252
Well if everyone who doesn't share your questionable theories/opinions is a "sick marxist" to you, what does it say about you?
Are you a sick imperialis/nationalist/fascist/nazist?
>That is because every case is specific and unique.
No. It's all the same. We live in a deterministic universe build on regular rules that are not yet discovered by human science. That's all. You aren't special too. Everyone and Everything is replaceable and predictable.
| >>346300 Determinism is only one of many different schools and on that regard there's alternatives too. Your determenistic universe by its own nature as a theoretical school is only one of many different points of view for you to view it through. Also, I can use your words against you. Well if everyone who doesn't share your questionable theories/opinions is a "imperialis/nationalist/fascist/nazist" to you, what does it say about you?
| >>346295 Also, germ theory is as valid at the moment as the current facts discovered about it. Trace down its history and you can understand my point better. To get to the point of germ theory Europe's population was more than halved through the different paradigmes beforehand. They were not any less scientific by your own definitions but were completely denied by the next theory.
| >>346294 The specific areas where wealth had piled up were areas in present France and areas in present Italy. I say present France and Italy since those countries would come at a later point. In those areas work conditions improved significantly compared to other places in Europe.
>>346291 But you can't use that argument for countries in the Middle Ages and in fact, it's difficult to use that argument comparing The UK to mainland Europe since the states created their own ways.
| >>346341
>But you can't use that argument for countries in the Middle Ages
Because in the "Middle Ages" there was no capitalism? It was Feudalism. Feudalism was an economic system which gave power to those who owned land. It also was an ideology where the feudal elites were religious legitimated and the rest was fooled with religious opium. And when capitalism replaced feudalism as a system and as ideology, then mechanism and biologism (including racism) took place to fool people.
| >>346341
>and in fact, it's difficult to use that argument comparing The UK to mainland Europe since the states created their own ways.
I don't see how it is difficult to compare the UK to mainland Europe. The basically went pretty simmiliar ways: Industrialisatzion, overcoming feudalism (the remaining monarchy is politically a joke. The "house of lords" douchebags and monarchy just survived by becoming capitalists, the rest is jus for show) and at least moving to the right.
| >>346341
>The specific areas where wealth had piled up were areas in present France and areas in present Italy.
When exactly? And what does "piled up wealth" mean for most people? In Stalinism and post-maoist chinese-"communism" wealth also increases. Also in fucking Africa wealth increases. But is it everyones wealth or just the wealth of a few?
| I have no idea what my political believes are, Pol compass says I'm slightly left of centre, though I tend to disagree with leftists more than those on the right
| >>346651
It's easy to find out.
- In which points do you agree and disagree with the left and right?
- What do you think are the most important and unimportant poilitical issues?
| I'm left leaning but with right wing traits, and I hate arabs
| >>349928
I'm intollerant left. If it was up to me I would put all right-wingers into gulags. I don't see anything ethical wrong about it. It's just making them expierence what they want to do to others. It's actually education.
| Camping in the wild should be legal
| because of "intolerant left" Nazi Germany doesn't exist
| Arabs aren't a race, it's sand nignog culture and it spreads through their archaic backward ass religion
| >>351915
In ancient times until the late middle ages "sand nignog cultures" were on a very high level, compared to backwarded barbarians in the north, living in the woods.
Things changed with discovering and exploiting america and the industrial revolution.
| proud barbarian north man here, may the sand nignogery vanish someday
| >>351915
>When youre not racist enough to say "Sand Nigger" but just the right amount to say "Sand Nignog".
This thread is permanently archived
| Things like:
Morality
Political organization
Societal structure
Economics
Etc...
DEBATE!!!