Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I will pull a YouTube comments section shitty bait. Anyone..(yes you who is reading it right now) who will click this to see what's the hidden text, will be joining the bald club soon. Welcome future baldies 
I like being bald, makes head rubs/scratches niiiiiiiiiiice. I just want people to be able to grow hair if they want to.
Wait... did Vegapunk make any hair growth stuff?
[automerge]1760446123[/automerge]
Shout out to Massie and Sanders for being above this crap.
Btw @Jew D. Boy are you a leftist?
" “Organisation of Credit”
Economic transformation was at the heart of his activity during 1848, arguing for the “organisation of credit” and creating The Bank of the People. He saw this as the means to achieve “the organisation of labour,” which still remained the end. This was because “the organisation of labour must not emanate from the powers-that-be; it ought to be SPONTANEOUS.” In other words, labour must organise itself rather than be organised by the State or by well-meaning intellectuals:
Economic change cannot be left to the State which was, as he had put it in 1846, “chained to capital” and cannot be seized and reformed. Moreover, it was not up to the task anyway:
He also sought economic change now, opposing all the others on the left who advocated “political revolution first, then social revolution.” Instead, he argued that economic transformation was needed and so it was a case of “social revolution first, then political revolution.” This reflects his reformist politics and rejection of insurrection.
As well as solving the social question, economic change was needed to combat the economic crisis (which had got steadily worse after revolution). Moreover, he argued that workers could not rely on or wait for the government to act, not least because it was obviously bourgeois and opposed to social reforms. Nor could they await the seizing political power – whether by election or a coup d’état – for their distress would not disappear in the meantime.
Proudhon, then, sought practical solutions to the problems facing the revolution and the working class rather than postpone such things to after “political power” was won (if it ever were and assuming the politicians were up to the task). I must note that some – usually Marxists, following Marx himself – suggest that Proudhon’s “Bank of the People” project was an expression of his utopian politics. However, such smug comments seem to forget that there was a revolution taking place – when would be a better time to seek to apply your socialist ideas than during a revolution? And who better to build socialism than the workers themselves by their own associations for production and credit?"
@RyoQ this is talking about one of the first libertarian socialists, Proudhon, as an example of what I meant of the two different types of communist, although people think of that word as only reffering to authoritarian socialists like marxists and leninists, and bourgeois means being part of the capitalist class
Economic transformation was at the heart of his activity during 1848, arguing for the “organisation of credit” and creating The Bank of the People. He saw this as the means to achieve “the organisation of labour,” which still remained the end. This was because “the organisation of labour must not emanate from the powers-that-be; it ought to be SPONTANEOUS.” In other words, labour must organise itself rather than be organised by the State or by well-meaning intellectuals:
“Louis Blanc represents governmental socialism, revolution by power, as I represent democratic socialism, revolution by the people. An abyss exists between us.”
Economic change cannot be left to the State which was, as he had put it in 1846, “chained to capital” and cannot be seized and reformed. Moreover, it was not up to the task anyway:
“Since I first set foot on this parliamentary Sinai, I ceased to be in contact with the masses: by absorbing myself in my legislative work, I had completely lost view of current affairs […] One has to experience this isolation called a national assembly to understand how the men who are the most completely ignorant of the state of a country are nearly always those who represent it.”
He also sought economic change now, opposing all the others on the left who advocated “political revolution first, then social revolution.” Instead, he argued that economic transformation was needed and so it was a case of “social revolution first, then political revolution.” This reflects his reformist politics and rejection of insurrection.
As well as solving the social question, economic change was needed to combat the economic crisis (which had got steadily worse after revolution). Moreover, he argued that workers could not rely on or wait for the government to act, not least because it was obviously bourgeois and opposed to social reforms. Nor could they await the seizing political power – whether by election or a coup d’état – for their distress would not disappear in the meantime.
Proudhon, then, sought practical solutions to the problems facing the revolution and the working class rather than postpone such things to after “political power” was won (if it ever were and assuming the politicians were up to the task). I must note that some – usually Marxists, following Marx himself – suggest that Proudhon’s “Bank of the People” project was an expression of his utopian politics. However, such smug comments seem to forget that there was a revolution taking place – when would be a better time to seek to apply your socialist ideas than during a revolution? And who better to build socialism than the workers themselves by their own associations for production and credit?"
@RyoQ this is talking about one of the first libertarian socialists, Proudhon, as an example of what I meant of the two different types of communist, although people think of that word as only reffering to authoritarian socialists like marxists and leninists, and bourgeois means being part of the capitalist class
I am this close to shaving my head. Only reason I'm hesitating is hair does have biological functions people don't talk about revolving sensory/nature stuff, and I'm worried about that, and winter is cold.
I like being bald, makes head rubs/scratches niiiiiiiiiiice. I just want people to be able to grow hair if they want to.
Wait... did Vegapunk make any hair growth stuff?
[automerge]1760446123[/automerge]
Shout out to Massie and Sanders for being above this crap.
I like being bald, makes head rubs/scratches niiiiiiiiiiice. I just want people to be able to grow hair if they want to.
Wait... did Vegapunk make any hair growth stuff?
[automerge]1760446123[/automerge]
Shout out to Massie and Sanders for being above this crap.
Nothing is hotter than this.
Btw, Wear a hoodie in winters
Again, there is what basic definitions says, and there is what the research says. The two are different. Basic definition are made to vulgarize complex concepts, they are, often, inexact. If you want to know what racism really is, you must need to look at the research on the subject. as such, you can understand why racism can't be interindividual and can only be systemic.
I agree. I'm talking about the systematicity(?) of racism and the fact that interpersonnal racism (like a so called reverse racism) can't exist.
But the best way to understand racism is under the bigger prism of domination related to whitesupremacy and whiteness.
To be honest that's a good question but I'm not sure it's possible. Maybe something that could make it materialist is if the focus of the religious principle were based around the notions of system... Materialism is the understanding of the way our societies are built through social systems, but if a religion were to focus on that, it would defeat the purpose.. I don't know if it's possible to be honest.
I'll deal with the details later.
I agree. I'm talking about the systematicity(?) of racism and the fact that interpersonnal racism (like a so called reverse racism) can't exist.
But the best way to understand racism is under the bigger prism of domination related to whitesupremacy and whiteness.
To be honest that's a good question but I'm not sure it's possible. Maybe something that could make it materialist is if the focus of the religious principle were based around the notions of system... Materialism is the understanding of the way our societies are built through social systems, but if a religion were to focus on that, it would defeat the purpose.. I don't know if it's possible to be honest.
I'll deal with the details later.
I’ve listened to MAGAts and other righties constantly and vigorously threaten bodily harm against so many marginalized groups over the last two decades (several of whom famously carried out same), so I tend to treat people the same way they treat others…but yes, I would call myself a socialist, why do you ask?
I mean if people are mistaken about politics and morals I think we should want them to see what's true instead of wanting them to harm themselves
But to give an example, say a racist person, someone defending from a racist attack, and making sure it doesn't happen by doing things like shaming racism, passing laws against it, physical self defense, etc is good
But I believe we should also want that racist person not just to not harm others, or not be able to harm others, or have a way harder time trying to do that, but also to change
But I ask because you seemed to be leftist but I didn't know what your political views were exactly, could be democrat, could be leftist specifically
So are you like social democrat or an authoritarian or libertarian leftist?
But to give an example, say a racist person, someone defending from a racist attack, and making sure it doesn't happen by doing things like shaming racism, passing laws against it, physical self defense, etc is good
But I believe we should also want that racist person not just to not harm others, or not be able to harm others, or have a way harder time trying to do that, but also to change
But I ask because you seemed to be leftist but I didn't know what your political views were exactly, could be democrat, could be leftist specifically
So are you like social democrat or an authoritarian or libertarian leftist?
You’re absolutely right, and I appreciate levelheaded people who want to see the best in others…but I’ve been around the block more than a few times, and I’ve noticed that most assholes who buy into the conservative mindset are unfailingly cruel to anyone who disagrees with them, which tells me they deserve the exact same level of disrespect in return, that’s all.
To answer your question, I’ve never thought about specific labels past “leftist/socialist/progressive,” so I don’t know which classification I really fall under; best I can say is that I believe the government owes its citizens a debt to provide for and protect them, elected officials are called “public servants” for a reason. I guess I must lean somewhat libertarian, loath as I am to admit that…I think everyone is entitled to personal freedoms (provided they aren’t directly attacking someone else’s) and corporations/political organizations should be subject to regulation to prevent the rampant greed we keep seeing. Furthermore, I’m pro-choice and pro-universal healthcare, and although I think there should be a stronger degree of control, I believe in the right to bear arms (just not the same way righties do), I’m all about autonomy at home and accountability in DC
To answer your question, I’ve never thought about specific labels past “leftist/socialist/progressive,” so I don’t know which classification I really fall under; best I can say is that I believe the government owes its citizens a debt to provide for and protect them, elected officials are called “public servants” for a reason. I guess I must lean somewhat libertarian, loath as I am to admit that…I think everyone is entitled to personal freedoms (provided they aren’t directly attacking someone else’s) and corporations/political organizations should be subject to regulation to prevent the rampant greed we keep seeing. Furthermore, I’m pro-choice and pro-universal healthcare, and although I think there should be a stronger degree of control, I believe in the right to bear arms (just not the same way righties do), I’m all about autonomy at home and accountability in DC
You’re absolutely right, and I appreciate levelheaded people who want to see the best in others…but I’ve been around the block more than a few times, and I’ve noticed that most assholes who buy into the conservative mindset are unfailingly cruel to anyone who disagrees with them, which tells me they deserve the exact same level of disrespect in return, that’s all.
To answer your question, I’ve never thought about specific labels past “leftist/socialist/progressive,” so I don’t know which classification I really fall under; best I can say is that I believe the government owes its citizens a debt to provide for and protect them, elected officials are called “public servants” for a reason. I guess I must lean somewhat libertarian, loath as I am to admit that…I think everyone is entitled to personal freedoms (provided they aren’t directly attacking someone else’s) and corporations/political organizations should be subject to regulation to prevent the rampant greed we keep seeing. Furthermore, I’m pro-choice and pro-universal healthcare, and although I think there should be a stronger degree of control, I believe in the right to bear arms (just not the same way righties do), I’m all about autonomy at home and accountability in DC
To answer your question, I’ve never thought about specific labels past “leftist/socialist/progressive,” so I don’t know which classification I really fall under; best I can say is that I believe the government owes its citizens a debt to provide for and protect them, elected officials are called “public servants” for a reason. I guess I must lean somewhat libertarian, loath as I am to admit that…I think everyone is entitled to personal freedoms (provided they aren’t directly attacking someone else’s) and corporations/political organizations should be subject to regulation to prevent the rampant greed we keep seeing. Furthermore, I’m pro-choice and pro-universal healthcare, and although I think there should be a stronger degree of control, I believe in the right to bear arms (just not the same way righties do), I’m all about autonomy at home and accountability in DC
I heard Carl Sagan phrase it the way you do
Trying (and failing) to post less here, but this was so succinct I had to do a good ole copy/paste:
"You know how private equity firms buy a company and loot all of the assets for short term gains and then bankrupt the company? That’s what the GOP and oligarchs are doing to the USA."
Edit: By Buggy's Balls, it's actually here: a Wang Zhi emote.
"You know how private equity firms buy a company and loot all of the assets for short term gains and then bankrupt the company? That’s what the GOP and oligarchs are doing to the USA."
Edit: By Buggy's Balls, it's actually here: a Wang Zhi emote.
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/14/private-chat-among-young-gop-club-members-00592146
This is the kind of shit I’m talking about @Blax Blah There is a thorough lack of decency on the right, they are happy to mock and dehumanize anyone who’s not like them…they’re just big Nazi bullies, and my dad taught me that when someone’s harassing you like this, you give it back to them ten times harder and teach them a lesson they’re not likely to forget. This is what the Republican Party is truly about at its core, so why should I show such horrible animals any respect??
This is the kind of shit I’m talking about @Blax Blah There is a thorough lack of decency on the right, they are happy to mock and dehumanize anyone who’s not like them…they’re just big Nazi bullies, and my dad taught me that when someone’s harassing you like this, you give it back to them ten times harder and teach them a lesson they’re not likely to forget. This is what the Republican Party is truly about at its core, so why should I show such horrible animals any respect??
From the book I mentioned:
"At the time…
Given the sorry tale recounted above, it is unsurprising that there was not much popular support for the Second Republic by the end. The hopes of February were soon crushed – by the Second Republic it created.
The Revolutions of 1848 were notable for the numbers of socialist thinkers active within it, some as significant participants. Here, I will concentrate on two whose movements still exist – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Karl Marx.
I will cover their role in the revolutions of 1848, what they argued at the time and draw out lessons. "
"At the time…
Given the sorry tale recounted above, it is unsurprising that there was not much popular support for the Second Republic by the end. The hopes of February were soon crushed – by the Second Republic it created.
The Revolutions of 1848 were notable for the numbers of socialist thinkers active within it, some as significant participants. Here, I will concentrate on two whose movements still exist – Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Karl Marx.
I will cover their role in the revolutions of 1848, what they argued at the time and draw out lessons. "
One does not rejoice on a strike against colonialism and oppression for no reasons, no matter the nature of the crime, they are probably in the front seat of such oppression themselves. It's not up to you to say which person gets to bitch or not upon the perpetuation of colonization because that's what the ceasefire is : Imperialism trying to hide by striking down the resistance.