World's greatest chessmaster has something to say

Coming from a man who's entire career was subsidized by the state.
Also, daily reminder that in the 90s he (and a lot of 'liberals') was fully behind Putin's rise, thinking that he is a new Pinochet, and was writing different texts:
And, by the way, the rising military spending and military success were important components of Reagan and Thatcher "revolutions": Falklands, Grenada, Tripoli's bombing – sounds familiar, doesn't it?
vedomosti.ru/newspaper/articles/1999/12/22/pobeda-demokratii

I fucking hate it when people do this. They do it a lot with Steven Hawking too. He's a great theoretical physicist, so the media feels like sharing his retarded opinions on religion, philosophy and fucking aliens like he knows what he's talking about.

...

Sweden employed a minimum of welfare shit compared to Sander's plan, and it still relies heavily on capitalism to hold everything up.

Oh and most importantly, despite all that, it's failing miserably.

Chess requires a mindset that works well for understanding politics. Comparing this to vidya is stupidly childish.

Theoretical physics however, like many sciences, have nothing to do with political understanding.
Either which way, It's far better to look at the validity of the historical evidence (In which case, undeniably, his argument is untouchable) or the logic behind it itself (USSR wasn't full on socialism, hence why it was able to get as far as it did).

...

Holla Forums never changes.

...

Confirmed for having never played chess. It might contain elements remenisent of politics metaphorically like having to think several moves ahead, trying to get into your opponent's head, making sacrifices for greater gain, risky gambits, so on and so forth, but the game itself is nothing like politics. It's a board game with strict, mathematical rules that's simulating a medieval battle.

I didn't say it is politics, retard. Learn to read, school is public where you're from afterall, just like socialists want ;)

No you're just autistic for taking an obvious joke seriously

Maybe we should ask IBM's supercomputer how to run our country, it's better at chess than this faggot.

...

Yeah, put down the Game of Thrones for a second there Tyrion Dragonelf.

Sure pal.

Do you plan to use actual arguments, or do you prefer saying nonsense and hoping the mods ban people for saying "wrong facts"? Oh, it's Holla Forums who the fuck am I kidding.

Same shit here. A kindergartener can understand this better than you group of fools can. Likewise, they've got a higher education than you as well. Allow me to explain this in terms that even retards such as yourself can understand.

First, being good at chess does not imply a profound understanding of politics, or that you are an expert at them. It does, however, require a good understanding of what consequences your actions will have. It requires you to think far ahead, to conceptualize, and to do so quickly. These are skills that are fucking obviously useful for understanding politics.

This means that Kasparov has some credibility in what he said, and isn't simply trying to use an unrelated title as a point of authority (Infact, his argument relies on his past experiences with examples of the utter failures of socialism being his authority on the subject).

Best part though is that what he said is true, wether it's said by a Grandmaster of chess, a theoretical physicist, or some fucking nobody is irrelevant. Attacking his profession when he doesn't even try to relate it to his argument is a sign that you and the rest of these limpdicked faggots have no arguments against what he said outside of doublethink.

And war is peace, slavery is freedom, and ignorance is strength

Roflmao. Nice argument there, cuck.

Goddamn, these kids are so fucking retarded aren't they?

Guys, I think a socialist might have fucked this guy's girlfriend or something.
We should probably let him vent in peace.

Wonderful non-argument there bud.
Nice projecting adding onto it. I guess was right, you are a cuck.

Too cowardly to argue back?

Wow, really shows the courage of leftist fuckboys. Get the fuck off this thread then if you can't be a man.

Tell us more about how your high school crush sucking off the whole,basketball team then rejecting you is the Jews fault Holla Forums

No not really. Humans highly skillful in intellectually challenging fields are perfectly capable of displaying both ignorance and stupidity. He's not a robot. There are other human-affecting factors influencing him. Intelligent philosophers do disagree all the time you know? Anyways, think Ben Carson. Also, no. What do Sanders supporters know about socialism? Why does he see to have the same idea of socialism meaning big government and taxes as they do? To the idea that he has first hand experience of socialism and thus is more of an expert, I can claim to have been the victim of capitalism's poison and thus make myself out to be more of an authority. These type of points are lame.

We go through socialism, its history and meaning all the time here. It's boring.doing it at this level.

Please change the subject some more, I love people who have to divert their argument elsewhere because they can't simply win.

;)

kek

"Fuckboys"
Real cool.

What argument? About chess?

No, your involuntary celibacy is far more interesting to me.

Tell me when you really started to realize that you weren't just a late bloomer and that it wasn't gonna happen for you?

You need to expand your folder of statue photos.

I'm on my phone though and it's such a pain

Agree.

Are you liming your gallery of statues to any categorization?

Well you aren't since you replied in earnest back to my friend, but I'm afraid your compatriots are rather dumbfounded as how to attack back.

I'm afraid we have won this skirmish, as your "sophisticated" friend lacks the intelligence to continue on and instead continues to try and fling the argument out of the window in exchange for petty insults.

You leftists are incredibly weak.

It's a fucking board game.

I prefer Greek statues but some from other cultures catch my eye. I really like statues of goddess' as well, but again, whatever catches my eye.

No not really. This is really low quality. Sure, claim your victory over something nobody seemed to have any interest in. There are more serious threads and discussions to be had with members here that people actually care about. I'm not kidding. Who the hell do you expect to take all of this chess stuff seriously? I'm way too lazy for that shit.

personally I have a ~2000 ELO on chess.com and I cantget my head round most political theory for shit

Greek statues are boring, IMO. They look like out of shape rich people.

Oh ok. Yeah, I like them too.

They're beautiful.

Never change Holla Forums. Your boogeymen will protect you when your doublethink fails.

This has nothing to do with general intellectual capability. The ability to conceptualize and understand the consequences to actions rather far in advance is more the point, among many other things that chess requires. Like I said, it's not that being good at chess immediately means you are a political mastermind. But neither is it entirely unrelated like say, Theoretical physics, as was brought up earlier, or having a master's in biology/electric engineering.

Such as? I'm referring to his general understanding of politics and how his profession, out of many that are typically used, actually does have some common ground with the subject at hand.

So what?

Whatever he tells them.

That is a definite part of socialism. I understand that Holla Forums has an unhealthy view that not calling what is effectually government a government is anarchism, not statism, but no, to provide the welfare state of socialism you need to have a government that is large enough to enact and distribute such things, and that has the funding to pay for them.

What poisons are these, do tell. Keep in mind that Capitalism's goal as a system is not to pamper you and give you what you want, but rather what you deserve. You also seem to miss the point that he's alluding to the general understanding that the USSR is shit, and was shit to live in, an absolute fact.

Yes, I'm sure you comrades do get tired of all the doublethink and mental gymnastics. We can see a good example that is still unsettled to this day in this very thread.

"THE USSR WAS BAD! IT WAS NOT SOCIALIST!"

"THE USSR DID SOME GOOD ACTUALLY CAUSE OF SOCIALISM"

Learn to read faggot.

This place really does get boring when it's the same old shit.

Sounds like you'll fit in just fine around here.

...

I'm fascinated by them. Everything about them is made so life like, so perfect, except the eyes which have no gaze.

The irony is astonishing. The pattern has always been the same.

It's as though you have to repeat what you heard because you can't bear the thought of being utterly and entirely wrong.

okay tyrion

Chess is a great board game for testing your logic, Kasparov made very good points about how leftism fails every fucking time and yet, you deny it.

You deny it, you deny everything a man who had lived in the USSR said about how much of a failure leftism is.

And so ignoring and leaving us to our argument is your last defense. It's not because you're lazy, it's because you have nothing to defend left.

You're out of resources, you're weak, you're frail. You're nothing now.

Even in a real fight I would destroy you since you have such a pathetic, cowardly, even lazy stance on your opponent.

I have witnessed leftists first hand and when I confronted them about their political ideology they would lie to me like the sniveling faggots they are and instead say they were conservative because they didn't want to be argued with and shot down.

You people are fucking scum.

Again, you're already messing up on socialism. Socialism does not entail welfare. Socialism does not mean the distribution of goods. It does not mean big government. Personally, I'm not asking for free shit. We go through this all the time. I'm sorry. Try to understand this fellow human.

We're not trying at all. Say we lost or whatever, this is tedious.

Anyways, I told you this before, but we need to see some more statues in our daily lives! No fat statues though

I denied it? I didn't know that? You know, as a libertarian, I of course think that the USSR was great! Sure make claims about what's going through my head God. Whatever. I am a lazy guy. If I could talk with you in person than maybe I'd bother.

=^)

Hahaha, that doesn't exist. I didn't see that.

Except it does. Everytime. Unless the state is such poor straits (as it usually is under leftist incompetence) it always entails welfare, even if the doctrine doesn't directly call for it. It's like saying warfare doesn't entail killing, because it is merely about making the opponent give in.

Sure buddy. You sound like that faggot in video games who claims everyone else is a tryhard when they're better than he is.

Being lazy is bad, comrade, we'll have to put you in the gulag for that!

No, it doesn't entail welfare. Go read about it. I didn't say we could wreck you, I'm just saying that nobody feels like doing this task at this time. It's pretty obvious. Anyways, video games are for pansies

Well, lazy to get involved with this "debate" right now. I prefer being casual. And yeah, fuck you Stalin. You go to the gulag.

Historically, it always has entailed welfare. Always. But I'm sure your super speshul snowflake brand of socialism wouldn't need socialism, really! Too bad it's only in your head.

You mean nobody can. This thread is altogether common and Holla Forums always runs with its tail between its legs, or cries until mods ban the dissension.

So intolerant! I'm sure any hobby used in an analogy against you is for pansies :^)

No just go read a socialist author or something. Nothing special about it. But yeah, you totally owned everybody man!!!
Intolerant? Yeah, I don't care. Also no, video games really are for useless pansies. But if you're into them, whatever.

This guy has basically no credibility on the matter and this thread is a waste of time. The fact that he's a grand lelmaster of chess doesn't make him any more an authority on the topic than any other slavic person who lived under "communism".

Sage

Comrade, this is not very communistic in nature. I am very appalled by your anti-leftist statements. So individualistic. So independent.

I fear you will be the death of us all, comrade, so I have instructed the NKVD to kill you on the spot.

Sorry, we can't have capitalistic pigdogs like you around to dissent us from our one true ideology.

Indeed, that's why capitalism is needed FIRST for socialism to happen. Capitalism will build the infrastructure needed for socialism to flourish in the future.

Socialism is inevitable with the way things are going. Either that or we destroy ourselves. So take your pick.

Thanks Garry, you fucking faggot.

Except your theory fails with the fact that sweden was still piggybacking off capitalist nations and antics, and was employing a minimum of socialist policies.

AND ITS STILL A FAILURE!

And since when do you have any fucking authority to narrow the options to "Socialism or die!", leftists have no spine to make such claims.

Social democracy != socialism.
You messed up again.

An excerpt from Wikipedia: "Social democracy originated as a political ideology that advocated an evolutionary and peaceful transition from capitalism to >>>>>>socialism

...

Yeah okay, nice try, dipshit.

Of course. That was back then. Back then it was a legitimately socialist reformist movement. Now it's about keeping a capitalist economic framework with the implementation of social welfare programs to make it "fair." It's pretty-face capitalism. I mean that wiki you're reading from acknowledges it:
Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy, and a policy regime involving collective bargaining arrangements, a commitment to representative democracy, measures for income redistribution, regulation of the economy in the general interest and welfare state provisions."
It's origins is another matter from what it is now.

Kill yourself, chromosome hoarder.

Special snowflake is redundant. All snowflakes are unique. Right?

It's a meme, you dip. You're too new here. It's well known that newfags like you come here, without any technical knowledge of leftism or scientific socialism, and you think you can use Wikipedia articles and dictionary definitions to EBIN BTFO the degenerate lefties once again!!!

inb4 this sperglord sperges over "scientific" socialism kek

first world socialists are faggots /thread

Why do lefties immediately deflect from arguing the moment they can't argue a point?

So you're saying socialism has changed? Wow, what a capitalist pigdog you are.

A true socialist would always adhere to the original philosophy in which socialism was founded on! This is heretical, fucking capitalist.

I didn't tell you to stop calling it that. I'm just saying that snowflakes are unique, so I find it strange that people say special snowflakes instead of just snowflakes. Also, are you serious?
This is what you said:>muh speshul snowflake socialism will work this time!
Kill yourself, chromosome hoarder.

You're surprised by my answer.

Did you not read what I said. I said that social democracy isn't socialism. Social democrats sold out which is why I'm critical of reformism. This tends to happen. It's why I find Bernie aggravating. Finally, socialism is a broad ideology. There are many tendencies and schools of though. You could learn about them if you weren't such an ass.

*dialectics

Rather than concede they can be wrong, leftists prefer to pretend to be invincible.

I didn't know that I implied that. Well, I don't think I cannot be wrong. What is it that you want?

Oh I did, but it is socialism. Wikipedia even called it. You tend to cherrypick what's in that article instead of the whole damned thing.

Oops, sorry Christian, that was meant for your buddy

No it didn't. Socialism equals worker control of the means of production. Social democracy isn't that. Pretty basic stuff.

so·cial·ism
ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/Submit
noun
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community (workers) as a whole.

Wh-whoa, that sounds alot like your definition, honey.

kek

In a social democracy, corporations continue to own the capital and the means of production. Much of the wealth, in other words, is produced privately. That said, taxation, government spending, and regulation of the private sector are much heavier under social democracy than would be the case under "pure" capitalism. However, even in democracy corporations still lobby for new policies to enable tax-havens (read: taxes for individuals, but not private companies), deregulation of the lobbied industry (read: regulation for competitors, but not muh moral marketism), and finally subsidies (read: "it's okay when I get government welfare, and not those dirty prole- I mean illegal aliens and radical leftists!").
Taxation doesn't even make sense in communism as there are no classes for wealth to be re-distributed to.

Can you admit that socialism has failed miserably every time it has been tried? And with no room for improvement, mind you. Socialism, or derivative of marxism, only improves when it moves away from marxism.

Nice try faggot.

It takes sources from everywhere on the Internet and incorporates it in an article. It is scholarly in every right of the word "scholarly".

You see, unlike you (clearly) I actually play chess, albeit a bit more so when I was younger

Within the context of a game with very strict, clearly defined rules. You're talking about a game where the first set of moves aren't only predictable, they all have their own individual names and set of codified counters, all with their own names. The ability to think ahead and weigh the consequences comes from chess having a degree of predictability which comes from its strict set of rules. The ability to see ahead in a controlled, predictable environment with a manageable number of factors does not prepare you for the nebulous, unpredictable world of political economy with its potentially infinite factors.
lol no. Have you ever actually been to a tournament? The games with fucking timers generally take over an hour to complete and untimed games can take days.

Muh real lived experience.

He's an idiot talking out of his ass, and you were trying to imply that because he's good at fucking chess, that makes him not an ignorant. The Soviet Union wasn't socialist, it was state capitalist. European style welfare states aren't socialism either. To suggest that the mild SocDem policies supported by Sanders and the Soviet system are the same thing because they're both referred to incorrectly with the same word is the height of political illiteracy, or perhaps disingenuousness.

So did everyone faggot.

Lik eI said, the mindset that it requires is often useful for political thought. Autists like you don't possess that mindset and that's why you never left the novice level in chess. Kill yourself.

MUH
SPESHUL
SNOWFLAKE

Every fucking time. never change Holla Forums. Every version of socialism that is realistically possible has been tried, and it's all failed, a characteristic it shares with your cerebral development.

And the cherry on top
I'm not even from Holla Forums faggot. I troll both of you dumb cunts for shits and giggles. Your boogeymen can't save you from truth, faggot.

No respect for your elders, I see. This is why I never take political advice from retards like you.

Garry is probably smarter than you, I would bet all the money in the world he could debate you on politics and still win.

Young little punks like you, be it 20-30 years old, shouldn't even be voting.

BURN!!!

governing.com/topics/finance/gov-companies-receiving-largest-federal-subsidies.html

Nice try, newfriend.

ie not scholarly/second-hand
Articles that are written by scholars or professionals who are experts in their fields are. Scholarly is not some anonymous contributor (the definition of wikipedia) with an agenda, ie cherry-picking sources that suite the preconceived conclusion.

not-scholarly/second-hand*

I can, and i will.

Automation is going to cause huge loss of jobs. In fact, it's already happening in many places and it's only going to get worse. Sooner or later we will have to implement some kind of basic income or expect a huge rise in crime and a possible break-down of the whole system. Dunno if you noticed but capitalism is bleeding profusely right now and some form of socialism is the only way for the future.

The huge chunks of information on the subject are from sources from scholars and professionals who are experts in their fields.

Otherwise where would you get the Wikipedia information since all of that in-depth information is from such people?

The reason Wikipedia is credible is you can click on its source and see it is from a professor/scholar who wrote about it.

Nice try faggot.

Most of the sources are scholarly and can be checked. It isn't all blanked out, fact is that leftists are lazy and apathetic weaklings, and often won't check even their own sources.

Or have population control. Far more feasible than basic income and far more easier to impliment and maintain.

FTFY

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing

k

nice spook retard
yeah, instead you should take it from the generation that gave you nuclear arms, climate change and neoliberalism. lol

Literally called this every single time. You guys pussy out of an argument the moment you lose. You refuse to concede and instead just go full sperg.

you have no argument. just boring and unoriginal personal opinion

Right, gonna have to explain this a bit further. How are you going to achieve this exactly?

...

It's real enough, after all you get your learning from older, more experienced people. You should have respect for them.

It isn't, especially because it has made countries turn careful on who to attack, therefore it has forced nations to become docile with powerful enemies. Which is why you don't see alot of war nowadays because of nuclear weapons, also it's what caused the Cold War.

You know why it was cold, right? Because nothing fucking happened, since both powers, Soviet and American, had nuclear warheads.

It's not real. It's been debunked by scientists several times.

Oh, you mean the people that infected real liberalism, aka libertarianism, with Marxism and faggotry? Yeah, the classical liberals used to be cool. But you all are no-where near the definition of the old liberals.

All of them are on Holla Forums now, to say you're not a neoliberal would make you a libertarian and therefore you shouldn't even be here.

The editors are restricted to post sources for every word they put down. Literally I once put down random words in a Wikipedia article and the Wikipedia AI told me to fuck off if I didn't have a source for it.

It's a credible website.

Are you fucking serious? That isn't neoliberalism. Holy shit you're so fucking politically illiterate. Burgerlandiands and their shitty education.

Shit, that was meant for this guy , not you.

read a fucking book

nice spook retard
yeah, nothing except cuba, korea, indochina, latin america
lol
yes, reagan and thatcher, those famed marxists. and you apparently don't know what libertarianism is

Keep telling yourself that kiddo. When you can't handle the truth, it's an opinion.

Why is Holla Forums so fucking terrible at everything?

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

Why are anons so adverse to making quality posts?

Oh, that's right. You have the power of MEME MAGIC!

Government subsidies of corporations dwarfs "welfare given to illegals and leftists".

Yes, capitalism is bleeding profusely worldwide because of leftist socialist policies. And muh capitalists ebin meme nuffin, they is gud boyz. When they create offshore companies that cost hundreds of billions in taxes, they iz just protectin' theyz profitz XD.

Libertarians are classical liberals.
Neoliberals are people like you.

So what the fuck do you mean by, >that isn't neoliberalism.

no u

Everything's a spook if you consider Stirner's philosophy on everything being a social construct, which isn't the case for most things.

Didn't have nuclear arms
Didn't have nuclear arms
Didn't have nuclear arms
No nuclear arms, once again

If America had attacked Russian soil with warheads or if Russia attacked USA with warheads, it would've erupted into a nuclear war, but it didn't, which is why it's called the Cold War.

Those are conservatives.

I used to be one, and let me tell you, this is nowhere near what libertarianism is from your perspective.

Look if you go on wikipedia they're not just going to let you willydilly post something out of context on a fucking article.

Go try it out yourself, login, edit something on Wikipedia, and tell me how it went. Mmmkay?

Otherwise fuck off.

Holy shit. This guy doesn't know what neoliberalism is or what traditional libertarianism is. The fuck!!!!!

k

What a shocker!!!!

Hmm, interesting. You were saying?

They're really not though.
investopedia.com/terms/n/neoliberalism.asp

But that's wrong u retard. Stirner never proposed that "everything is a social construct". That's a gross misrepresentation of his philosophy.

Not an argument.
Why am I not surprised to find a furfag on leftypol?

"In FY 2016 total US government spending on welfare — federal, state, and local — is “guesstimated” to be $1,066 billion, including $610 billion for Medicaid, and $456 billion in other welfare."

"In all, the federal government has awarded grants and allocated tax credits totaling $68 billion since 2000."

usgovernmentspending.com/us_welfare_spending_40.html

governing.com/topics/finance/gov-companies-receiving-largest-federal-subsidies.html

Do you have any evidence that capitalism is failing?

Of course not, you'll just say it is, when most of the problems are due to leftist policies. Take the immigrants for example.

Try harder commie.

"welfare given to illegals and leftists"
thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-vs-social-welfare/

Likewise, Mr. S. Molyneux.
Get a life, scrub.

You both sound like faggots so the difference really isn't that glaring for me.

No, it isn't. You all use him to say that everything is a spook, even saying and I'm not a Holla Forumsack but bear with me here, even saying that RACE is a spook. When it really isn't, as it's a biological truth.

Yes, everything to Stirner was a social construct according to you.

Okay, do me a mutual favor then. Like I said, log into wikipedia, and edit it.

Just do it. Disprove me then!

Explain what these leftist policies are that are causing worldwide economic problems right now.

Also answer this one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

That's because your stupid.

Nice post, strawmanning and moving ur goalposts all in one.

Regardless of what some people here say, Stirner's philosophy isn't just "lol everything is a social construct XD XD". Read a book u dummy

Ma'am, I don't see anything on the first page. You mind highlighting where you edited it?

That guy is an idiot. He got neoliberalism wrong and just said, "it wasn't obvious to me because of…. faggots!"
I hope all of you sons of bitches got my earlier point. They don't care about real discussion. They just call you names and stroke their pathetic egos. They're so fucking illiterate that it just makes me lose interest and change the subject to something more general like music or something.

Here you go these nocturnes are very nice.
youtube.com/watch?v=liTSRH4fix4

If I was stupid, I'd be a leftist. As pic related said. But I guess that means I have no heart. Oh well, it makes me stronger in mind, atleast.

Nah, its pretty much everything is a social construct, I have read Stirner's book, mind you.

We're not social liberals asshole. Learn the fucking difference.

Looks like you only looked at the title, as usual. leftists fail to read even their own sources.
usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2016USbn_17bs6n_2030600032#usgs302

Fuck off mate.

Reduce birthrates
Quit importing foreigners
Quit providing aid to foreigners
It fixes itself. No genocide necessary, for once.

I'd tell you the same. You should seek help in an asylum, freak.

"educate yourself sinner!"
Typical lefty.

Immigration, in a heartbeat, is one of the main things that is going to gut europe's economy. Not to mention

Edits get checked with hours, sometimes even minutes. Only the wikistaff could permanently alter shit in the way you imagine. Of course, I'm sure you are only concerned about wikipedia's validity when the article is against you :^)

Oh boi

No need to go on. This has been a blowout where we move from one argument where the lefties "Get bored of it" (IE: They have nothing left to fall back to), and then onto another where it repeats. It's been fun, but I'm going to go to bed, I have work tomorrow, unlike the freeloaders on this board.

k

Hold your horses, m8.

I'm on mobile. I'll meme at you when I get back to my laptop.

What the fuck are you then? A special snowflake? Seems like it, tbh.

Oh, here. Seems like they already took it down, though. So I'll concede you that.

Nope, we're socialists. Some here are communists, some are democratic socialists, some are market socialists, some are Leninists, some are libertarian socialists (anarchism, libertarian Marxism)…etc. But we're not fucking liberals. Liberals ought to be gulaged immediately.

make sure you don't oversleep. wouldn't wanna make mr. bossman unhappy :^)
read a book

None of this shows that Illegals and leftists consume more in welfare then is spent through corporate subsidies.

How dare I ask you to read some cursory material before attempting to discuss it. The nerve!

As this example indicates in a literal ideological battle.

Same faggots, different time period.

If you're talking about refugees, leftists are not the ones causing wars in the middle east for the sake of profit.

How are you going to control birth rates? Are you going to decide who gets to breed and who won't? I don't see that going over well amongst the populace.

read
a
book

A liberal advocating for communism isn't a liberal. You just an idiot who can't tell the difference.

It can mean communists and socialists.

...

no beacuse you're using it as an adjective, we're using it as a noun. Even says under the same fucking definition zzzzzz

Holy fucking shit!! We're talking about terms in the realm of political philosophy! Terms you idiot! Not demotic implications!!!

read a book

read a book

No. Liberals want lassez-faire market capitalism.

A liberal allows you to accept a salary that is four, ten, a hundred times greater than that of the least well-off person in your society, so long as, when you step into the voting booth, you don a new hat and act so that all inequalities are arranged to benefit the least well-off.

It has many definitions, but the first one is the one that is used most commonly.

Which means that it can apply to you or anyone on this board.

Oh, please, stay mad.

Why would I read a book when I can get every parcel of information at my fingertips on the Internet? Buying books is extremely inefficient and a waste of my own time and money.

I'm not a liberal. I'm a communist.

Well it entirely depends on the context. We're using liberals as a noun, to describe a person who holds views similar to that of liberal parties etc. Ffs.

Waste of your time, right? Really goes to show what is being dealt with. The generation today reads less and feigns more knowledge.

Okay so you're liberals then.

It is, I can literally get all of my information more easily on the Worldwide Web. You think I'm stupid for using the Internet as an information source?

Because if that's the case, that's not being honest on your part.

What generation do you belong to, may I ask? You sound very much like a millenial, and not Generation X.

Looking up the general definition of a word is useless, you must pay mind to what context the word is being used in. Holla Forums talks in the context of political philosophy where a liberal is a very different thing from a socialist

We can't have a proper discussion if you refuse to use our language

wtf man where did I say that

Sure, whatever you say, friend. Your intuitions and mastery of connotations are totally not half-assed conjecture nor of a dichotomous, us v. them persuasion!

Your language is autistic, and I can't speak it. Maybe because I'm not retarded enough to speak it.

That's right. I'm a millennial critical of his own generation that indulges in sensational trivialities and doesn't know how to read anymore. Scholars aren't made by reading dictionaries. Dictionaries are meant for an understanding of demotic language use. We're talking politics and the language of political philosophy. Go try to be a understand the specialized language/terms of a biologist through a generalized dictionary. It won't work.

Stop refusing to acknowledge yourself, you are a liberal! Through and through! Come out of the closet, liberal!

Which is why I'm better off for listening to older people and not you. Your advice is like a rock advising me how to do algebra. You're not wise and intelligent. You're just intelligent, and that's your own downfall.

Politics is something you have to learn before your very eyes before committing to a certain ideology. You all are brainwashed for deciphering politics with only knowledge itself and not seeing the actual practicality of it.

Spare me your faggotry, vote in your new system and come back to tell me if it works or not, if you can live to tell the tale after erupting into a civil war between classes.

...

Nice identity politics.
Remember that before there was liberalism (classical), it was just an idea.

And it is still just an idea, there has never been any state that has used pure libertarianism as a socio-economic system.

If you look at the modern world now, they're all mixed economies, some being more socialistic/pink than others, but never true forms of libertarianism.

And yes, classical liberalism IS in fact, libertarianism. Whatever their differences maybe they are extremely similar.

You're talking about American libertarianism/propertarianism. Libertarianism is really anti-state socialism. It was always about opposing authoritative hierarchy.

That's completely false even with the American meme definition of libertarianism.

Libertarianism ISN'T, anti-state socialism. That is libertarian socialism. It is a sub-branch of libertarianism as you can have various degrees of libertarianism. It used to mean having free will.

How is it completely false?

think… what?

think that Kasperov drank the kool-aid to the last drop?

lel

Dude, please trust me on this. At least this one thing.Libertarianism was always about opposing power saying that no authority was self-justifying and that it was up to those that the authority reigned over to decide whether they're justified or otherwise completely dismantle them. This extended to the private sector and their hierarchy of bosses. Read traditional libertarian works which date back way longer than the 70's. The American version is a perversion sucking out the revolutionary potential of traditional libertarianism. They're only skeptical of the state but care not about the capitalists. This is an actual quote from Rothbard.

And yes, those are indeed it roots in PHILOSOPHY but when it first came to use under politics by Dejaque who was an anarchist communist.

It actually isn't. You're talking about two entirely different, if superficially similar, mindsets.
Nigger, I got third in my state.
Cool meme, bro.
Are you actively trying to sound like a fedora?
You're right, you're too dumb for Holla Forums.

Spook.
He's a political illiterate. The average liberal could out-debate him. His bullshit only appeals to "muh gut feeling" reactionaries.

Okay, I understand this, the original form of libertarianism under Dejacque had been perverted by some Jew. And yes, Jews tend to steal ideas from people and claim it for themselves.. I don't know why you all don't see that but most of the time they do.

I'm not even a Holla Forumsack and I see Jews, especially Rothbard as a threat to people and governments.

Anyone can understand politics, why do you think they allow all types of people to vote on issues? An average liberal could not defeat Garry, sorry. Maybe a political scientist as they have endowed their life into politics but not an average liberal.

If you think democracy is a great form of government well you're always going to have people with opposing views whether you like it or not.

we don't have a double think there's just people here with different ideas since we don't ban everyone with a different opinion

and if you say otherwise then why are you still here ?

He's not, he left.

I'm still here though.

Well at least we agree that the term was perverted. At least one thing.

That doesn't mean that they do.
Garry's understanding of politics is slightly below that of the average liberal if his tweets are any indication. Being good at chess doesn't endow you with political knowledge.

Nice platitude, but that doesn't make him not a political illiterate

Fucking image for ants.

Does anyone on here have the full size version?

Cf:

Well, it's missing a few of the ones on yours, but it's essentially that.

Oh, here's your version.

...

Read a book sometime, nigger. Or at least the fucking Wikipedia page.

Liberalism is and was a movement that started in the 17th century, though really formed as a concrete ideology in the 18th and 19th centuries, that was opposed to feudalism, mercantilism and absolute monarchy, and supported capitalism and republicanism. Liberalism is the central ideology of capitalism.

We are not liberals primarily because we do not believe in capitalism.

Thanks fam.

Who are you to judge that they don't understand what they're talking about?

He's been around long enough to understand the basics of politics, which is really all you need to have a democracy.

So you're saying people shouldn't vote because of their beliefs? Because politics is just about beliefs, essentially. You, a habitual imageboarder with absolutely no experience in anything important whatsoever, are telling me that politics is something to be strictly defined as one aspect, according to an average liberal's point of view.

You're just being biased to one man's beliefs, that's all. You're no better than the stormfaggots that come on Holla Forums and want to ostracize you all because you don't have a particular point of view in mind.

*in a democracy

The context of "liberal" can mean somebody who is left-wing, in particular someone who is contrarian to the workable right-wing governments that were had before.

It doesn't have to necessarily mean capitalism and republicanism.

Remember that the early proponents of capitalism were leftists in their time.

Mmm, no, I don't think that's right.

Proof?

When their political "theory" consists of the platitudes and memes of the ruling ideology with little thought behind it.

Political education doesn't come to you through some form of osmosis. "Being around long enough" doesn't mean you understand politics. In fact, I've found that older people tend to have the most retarded political opinions, maybe the osmosis works in reverse. Pic related.
No, you're putting words in my mouth.

I've done plenty of important things. I spent a year going around the country volunteering, for instance. Dumb ad hominem, fam.
No, I don't want an average liberal's point of view. It's liberal viewpoints that we're fighting.

Too pomo for me, fam.

No, it's right dude. Being a leftist is based on perspective. To be a leftist means a desire of change from the status quo. The term came about during the French Revolution in reference to the Estates-General. The proponents of capitalism wanted to move away from the feudal monarchy and promoted republicanism and the separation of church and state where as the people who sat on the right of the assembly (hence, right-wing) defended the monarchy. They were the first people regarded as leftists. Now, since capitalism has become the established system, it now represents the right-wing position and socialism is the left-wing ideology.

I live in capitalist country and I say it's shit. It must be so!

Yes it does, read a fucking book.

Liberalism is the ideology of capitalism. Conservatism is the ideology supporting tradition and order. The "right-wing" of the modern world ARE liberals. They're the ideological decedents of Edmund Burke, a member of the liberal Whig party.

They're right-wing because Burke was a famous opponent and critic of the French Revolution, "right-wing" ideologies being the various decedents of the figures and movements that opposed the French Revolution.

The Jacobins, who were the first leftists (literally, because they sat to the left in the national assembly, which is where the term comes from) supported capitalism.

So let me ask you, would you align yourself with the Tories then if you don't like Burke or even the Jacobins of the French Revolution?

So you're telling me these political ideologies were switched up through the ages?

But I like the Jacobins, they were just products of their time.

Also, the Tories were spooked as fuck monarchists.

Well since feudalism was replaced with capitalism, those who support the established system out of tradition, conservatism or the claim that some of the ills that the system does not eliminate are "natural" are right-wing. The original right-wing was pro monarchy, hierarchy and the non-secularization as well as feuda;ism. It's a matter of perspective.

It's more like politics has moved forward. It left feudalism and absolute monarchy behind and embraced capitalism and liberalism. We, the Left, want to move beyond capitalism.

What said.
None of us here doubt that capitalism and liberalism were a sign of progress and better than feudalism. We just think we can do better and move beyond it.

I.. I think I've been converted.

St-stop doing this to me, Holla Forums! I don't want to be your color, I don't want to be red. Pls no.

What do you all think about the EU?

It's shit, undemocratic, bureaucratic, etc.

You don't have to like socialism if you don't want to but the guy(s) in this thread on the side of capitalism is defending it so fervently, is doing so to the point of delusion.

Like capitalism is the perfect system that does absolutely nothing wrong, ever. And the flaws that it has is ALL due to leftism. That is just deluded.

I also agree.

Well, all socialists want is the worker ownership of the mop. It's really that simple.

Not sure if you're serious, but if you are, welcome!

I am partially serious tbh. We agree on some things and I used to be centre-right. And it seems that I've been.. Enlightened to some extent. Perhaps it wasn't that big of an elightenment but you have changed me in some ways.

You see comrade? Marxists and anarchists can work together, right?

Well, at least you might have gained something from it.

Well, I don't really buy books as I said, but I'm willing to read a few to further enhance this new view of mine.

What would you recommend I should start with?

Are you looking for history or theory?

There's a thread going on right now about preliminary texts. They posted some good PDF's that you can download dude. I don't buy books either. I just download them.

You don't say.

No one is this retarded, this ought to be malicious dishonesty.

Funny how the broad spectrum of "socialism" gets characterized as the worst possible(credible) example.
If he characterized capitalism as one of the many brutal fascist dictatorships surely everyone would find it as honest yes?

Yes "the economy" as you know it goes to shit along with the profits of porkys.

Yes you fuckwit, America's economy collected the spoils of 2nd world war AND royally fucked the USSR economically with the cold war.-

No you fucktarded moron, great things come from PEOPLE, your mode of production consists of grinding the majority to dust while the few take the decisions of where that effort gets directed.
All that with the few living in repugnant luxury while the many are desperate to find someone to exploit them, for a tiny sum ,enough to sustain themselves.

This reeks of boomer.

Both of them. Give me everything you have.

I'll look at the PDFs too.

...

saved

Wasn't an oligarchy – ruling class didn't own property. But oligarchy was introduced through the market reforms, as envisaged by Trotsky.

are you an anarcho-capitalist

There's no basis for this. He undoubtedly has a very IQ, but so have many socialists like Einstein.

not an argument

but we fucking love the Jacobins
robespierre did nothing wrong

...

The whole thread

...

Could you post a link? I know it sounds stupid but I just can't find it

8ch.net/leftypol/res/710553.html#710553
Here you go. Sorry, I was out.

Danke scheun, mein Herr

What is the economic galgulation problet :DDD?

...

good rebubbal :D

Wow, who knew the greatest chessmaster who ever lived is completely fucking stupid on some topics?

it is :D

fug DD;;;

people are whites too, ok? go back to Holla Forums idiot

...

I find it interesting that the only two people active on this board are two ostracized people with one of them not understanding economics or really anything at all.

You're speaking on your own behalf, obviously

No, I'm not.

...

Tell me how much you know about history to explain the flaws in your idiotic system.

HE TOLD ME ENOUGH

Thank god for that.

...

...

...

...

>It asks the wealthy
So it's not a tax?

lol u fat cat :D

i have 2 friends that are jews stop being mean

i highly doubt that

He gave me a pay-day advance loan. Only 40% interest.

...

...

...

...

...

Ayy this thread is cancer

yeah