Hello friends!

freedm fr the wn!

Liche wrote:

Zealot still never made us the party...

What are you talking about?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot still never made us the party...

What are you talking about?

Centre/Neutral stance

Jesus wrote:

Centre/Neutral stance

In politics, that doesn't exist. The closest to that is Social Democrats.

And a "Party of the indifferents" would simply be too moronic.

So, me and fake-Jesus have to take over the world an make a neutral government now to prove its possible...

Liche wrote:

So, me and fake-Jesus have to take over the world an make a neutral government now to prove its possible...

It would be enough with strong enough arguements, though.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

So, me and fake-Jesus have to take over the world an make a neutral government now to prove its possible...

It would be enough with strong enough arguements, though.

nah. I got it planned out.

We would be like Swiss, But even MORE neutral

Liche wrote:

nah. I got it planned out.

Without arguements you cannot back up your idea and therefore you can't apply it.

Sadly, even Watermelon is making more sense than you...

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

nah. I got it planned out.

Without arguements you cannot back up your idea and therefore you can't apply it.

Sadly, even Watermelon is making more sense than you...

well not really...hes saying there are only two things you can be: Capitalist and Socialist. Thats very narrow minded.

Liche wrote:

well not really...hes saying there are only two things you can be: Capitalist and Socialist. Thats very narrow minded.

Ehm, no. That's very objective.

You cannot have a middle point between socialism and capitalism because they're opposite, they contradict each other.

well this is going 'a little' off topic.

but I'm saying there are other options besides Socialism and Capitalism.

Liche wrote:

well this is going 'a little' off topic.

but I'm saying there are other options besides Socialism and Capitalism.

Yeah, there was Feudalism which is just the antecesor of capitalism. Now instead of inheriting authority through the chucrh-approved grace of god, you inherit money and properties which by the legal framework let you assert power over others.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

well this is going 'a little' off topic.

but I'm saying there are other options besides Socialism and Capitalism.

Yeah, there was Feudalism which is just the antecesor of capitalism. Now instead of inheriting authority through the chucrh-approved grace of god, you inherit money and properties which by the legal framework let you assert power over others.

so the welfare states don't exist?

mattabesta wrote:

so the welfare states don't exist?

They're not a middle point between capitalism and communism. They're just another form of capitalism.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

so the welfare states don't exist?

They're not a middle point between capitalism and communism. They're just another form of capitalism.

but they have state owners ship so they don't qalafy as cappie states.

A CAPITALIST STATE IS A STATE WERE MOST BUISNESSIS ARE OWNED BY PRIVATE CONPANYES

mattabesta wrote:

but they have state owners ship so they don't qalafy as cappie states.

A CAPITALIST STATE IS A STATE WERE MOST BUISNESSIS ARE OWNED BY PRIVATE CONPANYES

Ehm, no.

A capitalist state is a state in which economy is controled by capital regardless of how much of it is possesed by state and private individuals.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

but they have state owners ship so they don't qalafy as cappie states.

A CAPITALIST STATE IS A STATE WERE MOST BUISNESSIS ARE OWNED BY PRIVATE CONPANYES

Ehm, no.

A capitalist state is a state in which economy is controled by capital regardless of how much of it is possesed by state and private individuals.

wtf??????
are you an idiot???
the very defnition of a capitalsist is a man whos upports what I said even wiki agrres look::::::::::::::::::::::::::: it's in blind text so you can read.

mattabesta wrote:

wtf??????
are you an idiot???

Sweet ad-hominem to the rescue, huh? Firstly wether I was wrong or not these wouldn't be grounds to call me an idiot for the siple fact that it would denote "lack of knowledge" not "lack of intelligence".

mattabesta wrote:

the very defnition of a capitalsist is a man whos upports what I said even wiki agrres look::::::::::::::::::::::::::: it's in blind text so you can read.

Wikipedia? Give me a fucking break... as if wikipedia was the highest authority source that can be found.

Words have ethymology, that is, an origin in roots. If capitalism is understood ethymologically it is a system run by capital, plain and simple.

A very regulated capitalism is Keynesianist, a deregulated as possible is Laissez-faire. State run capitalism is state capitalism like USSR's state capitalism.

So, what makes that capitalism? The simple fact that the whole economy is dependant on 1) capital 2) trade and so 3)market.

For example, USSR. USSR's government had a capital which it used to make the economy work. Soviet government invested that capital into industries and, ideally, that capital would have implied a profit which would enlarge the State capital and increase its economic capabilities. USSR's attempted socialisticity, which contradicted the capitalist nature of its economy, is what in combination with this later characteristic brought down the whole soviet economy: Government would produce housing which costed a portion of the governments' capital and would give them away freely, needless to say, that didn't generate any profit so the capital got shrinked. But the economy still relied on capital. Workers needed salaries to get money so they could buy food, clothing, shoes, etc.

So eventually the soviet economic system imploded: it was a contradictory capitalism.

The core point of capitalism is not wether businesses are owned by private individuals or collective organizations or state. The core of capitalism is wether economy at any level is dependant upon capital, hence "capitalism".

Else, it could be argued that where a state controls the economy, the state is functioning as the "private owner" of all the means of production.

I'm not gonna read that becuse I know I'm right.
you mister are wrong about capitalism and the world, it isn't black and white, freedom vs communism or capitalism vs communism.

mattabesta wrote:

I'm not gonna read that becuse I know I'm right.

In other words, you're giving me reason by being utterly unable to disprove my point even though you don't want to recognize it.

mattabesta wrote:

you mister are wrong about capitalism and the world, it isn't black and white,

There are things that can be intermediate and others that can't be.

Empty cannot be full, false cannot be true.

mattabesta wrote:

freedom vs communism

This is a stupid hyperbole. How is freedom opposite to communism?

mattabesta wrote:

or capitalism vs communism.

You can't have both communism and capitalism within the same framework since they oppose each other.

fuck this

mattabesta wrote:

fuck this

Thanks for desisting your stubornness.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

mattabesta wrote:

fuck this

Thanks for desisting your stubornness.

YOUR calling matabesta STUBBORN?

Liche wrote:

YOUR calling matabesta STUBBORN?

Yup. Read again if you got any doubts.