Julian Assange vs Slavoj Zizek

literally what?

Social Democracy was a broad movement with a large revolutionary, Marxist wing until WWI and the 1917 revolutions had them call themselves communists.

Leftists makes my cock hard

Žižek admitted that communists abuse the word "fascist"

Žižek and Assange are now members of the Dirty Hair for Men Club.

it's like they want to be pawns

Personally I like the western hegemony finally losing ground on the propaganda front and them totally wigging out about it but that must just be the tankie in me.

The anfems in Russia, how much do they like it?

That fucking kike is the reason fascists exist tbh

it's slavoj zizek vs random conservative with julien assange commenting sometimes.

Maki is my wife

mein gott they're both the worst

Christ, you get triggered easily. You should seek some type of professional help.

geez this guy's gettin trashed

This is the fucking best that right wing intellectuals can come up with?

Assange is dead

Yeah, who would have thought about it? Turns out it just takes a few facts to debunk socialism.

Human nature's a spook, unlike my unadulterated tabula rasa.

Yeah, and so are gulags, am I right?

Most leftists are clinically retarded, but it takes just a few facts to debunk capitalism as well. So we're in a bit of a bind. What do?

A quick and easy one is tobacco is projected to kill more people (500 million) than communism ever did in the next 25 years.

It takes hundreds of facts to debunk the sinking Titanic which is Capitalism.

Perhaps thousands of facts.

So, communism prohibits you from smoking tobacco?
You are correct, most leftists are clinically retarded.

Yeah, about two hundred years and counting and capitalism still hasn't collapsed.
And don't act like capitalism is bad when any other alternative is miles worse.

Why do you take criticism of a socio-political-economic system as "It has to take fifty years or it's wrong," that's not how it works.

I know you must have ADHD but criticism of something doesn't mean it has to happen fucking in a century.

Systems last centuries.

You are an ill read fool and I demand you stop posting on this board.

If a system doesn't work then it doesn't work. That's how it works.
It took less than a decade for capitalism to rise average wages (despite Marx claiming the contrary), meanwhile, not even in 50+ years could the USSR (or Cuba, or China, or the "D""R"NK) achieve Socialism or even better living conditions than capitalism.

The question is not if capitalism has some flaws, it obviously does, every system has some. The question is if Socialism is a better alternative, for which it's obviously not at this point.

Of course, the communist has to personally ridicule his opposition to keep thinking of his own views as coherent.

Try learning about our ideologies before you post stupid shit like this.

Holy mother of god do you have a high school understanding of history you excruciatingly dumb fuck

Most forms of left wing ideology would prohibit exploitative industries from doing what Big Tobacco has done.

What's your argument?
Could just say, if you don't like gulags don't be a reactionary haha

Or:
Literally the worst form of apologism. Equivalent to a Stalin lackey.

I'm not going to read the rest of the post that first basic sentence does it for me

I know the other ideologies, you strawmanning butthole. I was only talking about the ones which have lasted a considerable amount of time. Anarchists got blown out in a few years, and a lot of other shit couldn't even turn into a reality.

Thanks for proving my point.
The communist, when faced by an opposing worldview, retorts to ridiculing his opponent.

Yeah, so what? That wouldn't avoid all the killing made by people consuming tobacco. That's why it's a stupid criticism for capitalism, especially considering there are a lot actual criticism for this economic system.

Your two other phrases were meme BS.

This is the fucking internet. Enjoy your stay

...

You.bmp

Yeah, even the Internet is too smart for marxist shit.

I explicitly said capitalism wasn't perfect, you hypocritical idiot.

Big Tobacco actively advertises to impoverished markets, acts as a cartel, concealed for DECADES the research showing it was harmful, lobbies (and SUES) governments for favorable outcomes.

The concealment is a big one. How can you have conscientious liberty if industries can keep information from you?

Holy fuck hahahahahaha

Doesn't matter.

Arguing with David Horowitz is equivalent to arguing politics with a cat. Who's the real fool here?

That sounds more like a reasonable argument to me.
The point then is, what proportion of current smokers would also be smokers under a socialist system? Half of them? None of them? All of them?

What a dumb cunt.

It's not like marxists can do any better. See

Without the profit motive being the prime driver of the entire economy it removes the incentive to do what they have done. I'm not sure. I think we need to find a way to move past capitalism and the old garbage theories of the left need a serious overhaul.That's why I'm here arguing with these knuckleheads all day. Welcome any input. :)

I'm the dumb cunt? You can't even fucking coherently argue why a system of power outside of Marxism Leninism and Capitalism is bad, and resort to pointing out people are calling you mean names on the internet.

Stop posting on Holla Forums, start working on your high school homework so you can be in a university like I am.

There is no profit motive in Capitalism.

Well, we then would need to look at at statistics regarding smokers before those big tobacco industries took over.
Capitalism is good anyways, it's the best there is, and a lot of marxist critiques about it have been plain wrong.

I never argued that they were bad, just unachievable. Again, the only marxist ideology that managed to sustain itself was ML, while every other ideology was blown out in less than a few years (even by other marxists themselves, lmao).
Capitalism on the other hand is sustainable and has proven net positive benefits for society.

That's not an argument.

Again, either because of Truman Doctrine or local state policy against commune.

How does it feel to have less than a high school diploma level of understanding history?

Who is that annoying Jew?

Wow

So, it didn't work. Thanks for proving my point.

Once again, the communist has to make a strawman of his opposition.

Reducing it to before/after statistics is pretty useless and reductive tho, the facts are there. There is a ton of epidemiology research out there anyway. That's just one (literally) cancerous industry. Look at diamonds for another example. Finance is another. War industry directly profits off war, and on and on.

Maybe, I'd argue it's the ONLY system really, and the communist failed revolutions merely reproduced it. It's been around for a blink of an eye in terms of human history however, and is unsustainable.

For some, just as there were net positive benefits for the feudal lords. 2 billion living in abject squalor is probably not the ideal.

Instead of having an ideological shit fight why not work together to come up with fresh thinking?

Saying something "isn't achievable" is not an argument.

If you say this one more god damn time I'm just going to stop reading your banal posts there.

I'm not denying those cancerous industries exist, just that the specific quote on tobacco death rates to criticy capitalism wasn't as good.

Capitalism isn't unsustainable in any way that human society is.

I'm talking about net benefits for almost everybody. Again, the quote on poverty levels already tells you even the most miserable human beings have managed to improve their living conditions under capitalism.

Regarding this fresh thinking, what do you suggest? In my case, it has mostly been a debate between social democracy and liberalism, leaning towards liberalism. At the same time, I have been trying to consider some forms of socialism, with Market Socialism being the most reasonable position I have seen so far.

If it's not achievable it doesn't work.
Yes, they got blown out by capitalist societies (including the USSR?), therefore not achievable.

If you get so bothered with me evidencing your strawmanning attempts then stop doing it you dumb fuck.

Explain how it doesn't work.

Actually fucking debate

I already explained how they didn't work.
ML? Failed to deliver better living conditions and was unsustainable.
Anarchism? Got blown out by capitalists, socialists, and fascists.

Do you need to know anything more?

Also, if it's unachievable, it literally doesn't work. A magical unicorn that bakes me muffins doesn't work.

You gave me a high school econ class understanding of collectivism and it wasn't appreciated.

It actually succeeded in delivering better conditions.

If your answer to an ideology is violence, then your ideology failed.

Yes

An illiterate dimwit is not the word of god.

Finish your high school homework Timmy

Yet according to your own logic
So, ML failed. Thanks for proving it for myself.

BTW, if your ideology is so weak it can be blown out by almost everybody the it obviously doesn't work.

What does that even fucking mean?

I meant what I meant. From Tsarist Russia Pre-Post-Stalin it delivered better conditions.

Marxism Leninism is every form of collectivism ever and if you disagree with me I'll say it failed and if you disagree with that I'll tell you that you're making things too complicated for my poor brain

You said
See? You yourself proved ML is a failed ideology.

I know.

At least we agree on something.
Now, has there ever been a non failed marxist society? Not really.

Has there ever been or will be a non failed Capitalist society?

Not really.

Sure, but at least it can sustain itself.

Wrong again bob.

Communist party of Russia used to be social democratic labor party of Russia before 1917.
More you know.

So technically revolution 1917 was lead by social democrats, just like the revolution in Finland in 1918 was started by red guards under the leadership of Finland's social democratic party.

Around 200 hundred years and counting.
Try again.

Feudalism lasted about as long and it doesn't make it any less moronic and unsustainable.

Lasting isn't the point, no Nation lasts.v

They mostly weren't the same socdems that refused the Communist Party/Internartional.

Sure it lasted that long, but it successfully managed to be replaced with capitalism while improving the living conditions for everybody. Feudalism didn't make a substantial change in the overall welfare of the people.