Create Fascist Party?

Tyrlop wrote:

stop being like watermelon, dont make statemenst, argue why you believe that. i certanly dont believe you are right..
i believe that people can be more or less socialist or more or less liberal.

Don't you begin with slanderous ad hominem.

I have stated several times how it is impossible for a system to be partially socialist.

Socialism implies workers controlling the economy as a whole in a democratic and egalitarian fashion thus employing a decentralized planned economy system in which state has been abolished and all workers form part of the government.

How do Cuba or India fit into that category?

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Don't you begin with slanderous ad hominem.

I have stated several times how it is impossible for a system to be partially socialist.

Socialism implies workers controlling the economy as a whole in a democratic and egalitarian fashion thus employing a decentralized planned economy system in which state has been abolished and all workers form part of the government.

you stop the mad idea about everything that is negative against you is slander. and why do you think that your statements are correct? they are subjective. a country can be more and less socialist, as much as it can be more and less liberal. more and less nationalist. etc.
im really sick of your negative carma spread out on this forum, i have not seen any positive post for a very very long time from you!
and im am disquisted...
i dont want to tell you more, because the more i tell you the less you listen.
i hope you understand.

btw. what countrys were or are socialist in your eyes?

Tyrlop wrote:

you stop the mad idea about everything that is negative against you is slander.

You're accusing me of acting like Watermelon when it's absolutely false. How else can that be called?

Tyrlop wrote:

and why do you think that your statements are correct? they are subjective.

There are subjective and objective truths.

A subjective truth relies on personal perspectives and beliefs, on things relative to the individual while objective ones rely in already stablished ones.

A subjective thing is when you say something like "Blue color is nice". It is a personal perspective. Now, if a wall is green it's not subjectively green. You can't have the subjective opinion that the wall isn't green because green has a definition and the color of the wall fits with it.

In this case, socialism, has also a definition. It's not a subjective truth but an objective one. You can't start calling socialism anything you want and expect to make sense just like you cannot make sense while refering to a meatloaf as a book.

Tyrlop wrote:

a country can be more and less socialist, as much as it can be more and less liberal. more and less nationalist. etc.

According to the definition of socialism, no, that is absolutely impossible.

Tyrlop wrote:

im really sick of your negative carma spread out on this forum, i have not seen any positive post for a very very long time from you!

I have rarely seen the slightest intention from your part to even engage in debate or care about the forum's integrity.

Tyrlop wrote:

and im am disquisted...
i dont want to tell you more, because the more i tell you the less you listen.
i hope you understand.

That's exactly what half the opposition has been doing with my posts for the last couple of months until finally they decided to read and understand what I've been posting like crazy for several months already. I wonder if they would have even read what I wrote if I hadn't repeated and insisted so much.

Tyrlop wrote:

btw. what countrys were or are socialist in your eyes?

Absolutely none. The most recent and closest example of a relatively large scale socialist community in existance were the anarchist communes in Spain during the Civil War which were crushed by the fascist forces of Nazi Germany, Italy and Franco.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

You're accusing me of acting like Watermelon when it's absolutely false. How else can that be called?

mhh, i didnt wanted to look like slander, it was just an example. how you act. your are not like watermelon. but you do one of the same things. like socialism. NO DONT QUOTE THIS LOL.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

There are subjective and objective truths.

A subjective truth relies on personal perspectives and beliefs, on things relative to the individual while objective ones rely in already stablished ones.

yes true. a statement is objective. but everthing is not 100% refered to socialism and everything els.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

In this case, socialism, has also a definition. It's not a subjective truth but an objective one. You can't start calling socialism anything you want and expect to make sense just like you cannot make sense while refering to a meatloaf as a book.

in my eyes of metadata it can. youll say that percents are silly example or just silly. but i like percents so i will use that for an example. is that okey?

Tyrlop wrote:

According to the definition of socialism, no, that is absolutely impossible.

the defination of socialism. were is that?
okey here it is. a country that you call socialist, is a country that is 100% socialist. that means that a country also can be maybe 86% socialist, or 15% socialist.
i hope you agree on that.

next point:
a country can call themself socialist or not. its up to them.
marx can call say what country is socialist and so on. how many percent do you believe a country needs to become socialist? (sorry but precent i have allways loved) as i believe you believe is that you believe that a country needs 100% to be real socialist. that is true i believe. some people may believe that it also can be less to be REAL SOCIALIST, im not like that.
just so you dont argue against me if you believe i believe that. get it?
i believe that a country can have X% of socialism. its up to people if they call it socialist. but some countrys, i believe, may be have 99% (i dont think that exist) as an example.
i dont care. but if a country for example is 99% socialist or near it.
you say that it is not Socialist. well it is at some point. it may not be the "REAL SOCIALIST UTOPIA COUNTRY" but it is still socialist. its like american people saying obama is communist because one of his ideas thngs are the

il draw something for you to explain.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

I have rarely seen the slightest intention from your part to even engage in debate or care about the forum's integrity.

are we talking about me? no. we are talking about you. i belive you are very annoying. or let me say it like this. you are very annoying and here is the reasons:

1. your arguements are statements mostly, this makes me sick to read what you post.
2. i have not seen any positive post or anything from you, at least not from a long long time. lol, be happy. say something positive or at least if you are happy all the time post a smilie, so people can see it. because it makes me bitter to talk or see you talking.

3. smile. dont let your anger go on other people. and dont accuse people for being wrong. they got their believes.

4. dont post big replies all the time, were you have quoted allmost every word. it makes the one you are arguing with fell like you are very agressive. and that is bad. yes and dont quote this.

Tyrlop wrote:

That's exactly what half the opposition has been doing with my posts for the last couple of months until finally they decided to read and understand what I've been posting like crazy for several months already. I wonder if they would have even read what I wrote if I hadn't repeated and insisted so much.

bla bla... this is stuff that makes me sad. it makes me not want to read the rest of your post, because its just aggresive whinning IN MY POINT OF VIEW!
and please dont quote everything it makes me even more sad. thanks.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Absolutely none. The most recent and closest example of a relatively large scale socialist community in existance were the anarchist communes in Spain during the Civil War which were crushed by the fascist forces of Nazi Germany, Italy and Franco.

ok. what was socialist about 2nd spanish republic, and why was it only socialist during the war?

Tyrlop wrote:

mhh, i didnt wanted to look like slander, it was just an example. how you act. your are not like watermelon. but you do one of the same things. like socialism. NO DONT QUOTE THIS LOL.

This didn't even make sense, Tyrlop.

Tyrlop wrote:

yes true. a statement is objective. but everthing is not 100% refered to socialism and everything els.

What?

Tyrlop wrote:

in my eyes of metadata it can. youll say that percents are silly example or just silly. but i like percents so i will use that for an example. is that okey?

Socialism is not a system that can be measured in percentages. Socialism implies no state, no money, no trade, no alienation. How they hell can a society that comprises such elements be called socialist?

Socialism is a system in which the workers control the economy completely and manage it in a democratic and egalitarian way. There is no such condition in any country in any percentage.

Tyrlop wrote:

the defination of socialism. were is that?
okey here it is. a country that you call socialist, is a country that is 100% socialist. that means that a country also can be maybe 86% socialist, or 15% socialist.
i hope you agree on that.

As I explain above, socialism is a system with the aforementioned characteristics. It is a system in which there is no state, no classes, no money, no trade, no alienation and in which the workers control the economy totally in a democratic and egalitarian fashion. The whole production and distribution of goods is in charge of the workers who determine how these should take place in a democratic and egalitarian way.

You don't have such a condition in any country and the existance of said condition could imply the inexistance of capitalism within the society we're adressing. Or you have socialism or you have capitalism you can't have both for they contradict each other.

Tyrlop wrote:

next point:
a country can call themself socialist or not. its up to them.

Yeah and that doesn't make them socialist. I can call myself a woman but that doesn't make me one.

Just by calling themselves "socialist" doesn't mean that the system in which they're organized is socialism.

Tyrlop wrote:

marx can call say what country is socialist and so on. how many percent do you believe a country needs to become socialist? (sorry but precent i have allways loved) as i believe you believe is that you believe that a country needs 100% to be real socialist. that is true i believe. some people may believe that it also can be less to be REAL SOCIALIST, im not like that.
just so you dont argue against me if you believe i believe that. get it?
i believe that a country can have X% of socialism. its up to people if they call it socialist. but some countrys, i believe, may be have 99% (i dont think that exist) as an example.
i dont care. but if a country for example is 99% socialist or near it.
you say that it is not Socialist. well it is at some point. it may not be the "REAL SOCIALIST UTOPIA COUNTRY" but it is still socialist. its like american people saying obama is communist because one of his ideas thngs are the

Tyrlop, what percentage of negative do we have in positive? How much empitness can you have in fullness? The answer is simple: none.

Like negative and positive, like full and empty, socialism and capitalism cannot exist together. They're opposite things.

A magnet has a possitive and negative polus but a magnet doesn't have a mixed positive and negative polus.

A container is never empty, it's always full. It may have an emptiness relative to a specific kind of matter in question, but it's always full. Or, if the container can handle it, it's empty. But it can just be empty or full, not bothe. You cannot have emptiness in fullness.

Capitalism and Socialism cannot mix. Socialism implies the ownership by all workers democratically of all the economy where collective democratic planning rules the economy. In capitalism it is capital what rules the economy.

Tyrlop wrote:

il draw something for you to explain.

*I'll draw something to explain you.

"I'll draw something for you to explain" means that you will draw something that I will either use to explain or that I will explain your drawing.

Tyrlop wrote:

are we talking about me? no. we are talking about you. i belive you are very annoying. or let me say it like this. you are very annoying and here is the reasons:

What I meant with that reply, was that, being so indifferent as you have been towards the forum I wouldn't have expected you to even read what I've written over the months making you unable to judge over what I write.

Tyrlop wrote:

1. your arguements are statements mostly, this makes me sick to read what you post.

You forgot to mention "backed up statements".

Tyrlop wrote:

2. i have not seen any positive post or anything from you, at least not from a long long time. lol, be happy. say something positive or at least if you are happy all the time post a smilie, so people can see it. because it makes me bitter to talk or see you talking.

I'm not happy so there's no reason to show a mood in which I'm not, and most of my posts are intended to be "mood-neutral" unless the kind of language implies differently.

Tyrlop wrote:

3. smile. dont let your anger go on other people. and dont accuse people for being wrong. they got their believes.

What kind of mood and language do you expect me to employ when people reply to a post of mine without even reading it forcing me to bring back my points over and over until they get me tired of doing so?

Tyrlop wrote:

4. dont post big replies all the time, were you have quoted allmost every word. it makes the one you are arguing with fell like you are very agressive. and that is bad. yes and dont quote this.

Too bad, I have my replying style. I like to read thoroughly to a post the other person took its time to write and to reply as thoroughly as deserved.
If someone took his/her time to read to what I replied and reply to it thoroughly the correct thing is that I read equally thoroughly that person's post and reply to it in the same way.

Tyrlop wrote:

bla bla... this is stuff that makes me sad. it makes me not want to read the rest of your post, because its just aggresive whinning IN MY POINT OF VIEW!
and please dont quote everything it makes me even more sad. thanks.

Call it "whining" if you like, I'll call it "recounting of a true situation that nulifies discussion". And if people don't read to a post they're obligued not to reply to it nor to comment on the issue treated by that post.

You cannot disprove what you don't know.

Tyrlop wrote:

ok. what was socialist about 2nd spanish republic, and why was it only socialist during the war?

I was refering mainly to the anarchist communes. They managed economy in a completely democratic fashion without bosses and with the sole objective to suffice popular needs.

See why it is important to read what you reply to? I explained why it was socialist only during that time. I'll repeat it hoping that you will not dismiss it this time:

The armies of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Francisco Franco managed to crush them. They were destroyed, obliterated. That's why they were socialist only during that time, because they only existed during that time. They stopped existing and the few traces of socialism within spain with them.

Kenzu wrote:

We already have authoritarian right, and I dont think it makes sense to make a party with only a few members.

Besides, it is against forumotion rules to promote fascism in any way. I dont want this forum to be deleted just because of some fascist party with 2 members.

First they came for the fascists...

Quote :

Socialism implies no state, no money, no trade, no alienation.

No trade?
Seriously?
Well, that's fucking stupid.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Kenzu wrote:

=> officialy socialist

De facto capitalist. India is also officially socialist and de facto capitalist, the same goes for Cuba and North Korea.

whats wrong with cuba?

Stos wrote:

No trade?
Seriously?
Well, that's fucking stupid.

Trade is just necesary in an alienated society.

cary jebus wrote:

whats wrong with cuba?

It's capitalist and calls itself socialist. That's a big problem.

Hoxhaist wrote:

they have trade in sotielesm. because sotielesm is not perfect. people trade they own labor for laboour credits. in comunism they dont have trade. they only have people take whatever they want and give whatever they want.

No, not at all.

Hoxhaist wrote:

Quote :

Don't you begin with slanderous ad hominem.

how is this ad hominem? he gives ou a grat copmelmant! axcept ot man

It is an ad hominem for it targets my person.

Hoxhaist wrote:

its not an ad hominem, learn what ad hominem means. if i say you are a dicksucker cuntbag thats not a ad hominem. only if i say you are a shitsucker, therefore your argument is incurect. then thats a ad hominem.

And he's trying to nulify my arguements by comparing me to you, therefore, it's an ad hominem.

Hoxhie wrote:

Quote :

your being like watermelon. back up your statements, dont just say it

With you it's absolutely unnecesary since you're not into serious debate here.

thread gone offtopic!

locked