Topic: why socialism? - page 4. (Read 7792 times)

This thread is a freakin train wreck. The majority don't know the difference between socialism, socialist and communism. Wow.

Now you are just repeating yourself. Any claims of self defense are asinine and just an attempt at disguising the wide spread prevalence of violent terrorist inclinations of Socialists.

Then the only possible answer to the poll is "yes, sometimes violence is justified against rich people".

Because you can be attacked by rich people. Then you have to defend yourself.

You godmotherfucking Americans should know this better than anyone. Great depression, legal slavery of the poors, private polices of mining companies actually shooting at workers who tried to protest? No? Doesn't ring a bell?

So yeah, the answer is clearly yes. Answering anything else is stupid and only show how you bend yourself and spread your ass for your masters. Or how you have no clue anything happened before 1980.

because the left is powerless, socialism and communism will always exist except we return to preurban and preindustrial barbarism.

There is no "reading between the lines", this is self evident. If you are under violent attack, you don't stop to check the assailant's wallet first before defending yourself, thus your premise of self defense is totally asinine. Additionally Socialists and Communists LOVE redefining words to suit their purposes at any given time, such as words being "violence" or "hoarding wealth" being "violence".

For example:


There is no mystery here. This poll demonstrates Socialists are proponents of proactive violence based on their warped ideology and mental illness. This is literally indistinguishable from terrorism, and falls well within the federal legal definition of terrorism.

Because those who do not learn from history's mistakes are bound to repeat them

well if you look at brexit uk that is being pushed by the right winger captialism/nationalism/exploitation, you see that it also doesnt work.

How do you know that 100% of the liberals eat babies? Oh, yeah: https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-13-aoc-nods-in-agreement-people-eat-their-babies.html and https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-10-06-impossible-to-tell-difference-real-leftists-fake-plants.html.

Thanks.

Oh so you have to read between the lines in a poll? That tells a lot of the quality of the poll.

So in fact when the question is, as stated in your source, "is the use of violence against rich people justified?" the real question is "is the use of PROACTIVE violence and not in a case of seld defense against rich people justified?"

Ok great, there is no way that such a shitty question can change the results of course.

I have an idea, why bothering with questions? Next time juste say "on a poll of myself, 100% liberals eat babies for breakfast".

It will be easier.

maybe not

Whatever you say terrorist. Enjoy the kulak hunt. Too bad this time the kulaks are armed to the teeth.

^Its not proactive.  Excessive wealth and hoarding is already a form of violence.  Mitigating that is defense of said violence.
1.Well thats just cute but what about people who can't get into the country?

2. What about the people in the country who can't afford to pay rent without working, even if their tuition is paid for by a grant, where will they live?

3. How will they eat?

4. who will take care of their kids?

5. What about the people whose bosses won't give them flexible hours to attend classes and study?

and then when they graduate they are back working a (slightly better) job where their labor value is still being stolen and they are paid a higher wage.  Starting your own company in an established industry (the kind you are taught about in college) requires an immense amount of capital.  W

6. Where will this capital come from?  

7. How will they compete with huge corporations that offer more competitive prices because they have the advantage of stealing labor value from thousands of workers?

8. What if they get sick at any point in the process?

If you can magically jump through those eight hurdles, there are definitely opportunities in the market that some poor people can rise into and fill but this is an extremely competitive path and only the most outstanding individuals will earn their way to freedom.  That is the exception not the rule.  Most of the poor are stuck poor regardless of what they choose.

If you say so. The leftist French are especially retarded, so I wouldn't be surprised but I have my doubts. So do you ask for a pay stub before defending yourself from attackers? The correct answer is to defend yourself, period. We all know the left advocates proactive violence though, and that's what this survey is asking, so your cute little word games are irrelevant.

You suggest good alternatives to being a wage worker but wage workers don't have access to these alternatives because they don't have the money or time to make the change. 

Wage workers depend on their wages.  They can't just stop working to start their own business because they depend on that wage to get their next meal and make their next rent payment. In the labor market, there is always a greater supply than demand so wages are constantly suppressed and there is no free time to do the things you are mentioning.

How can someone get education when education is not free and their wage is their only source of income.   Avoiding starvation and homelessness is not irrational. 

*Ignoring soviet strawman*

Thanks for the mini Stalin, I'm an alt of Cracked5 though, not mOgliE but I guess for you all left French are the same.

It doesn't matter, the question is clear: is violence against rich people justified?

The correct answer is thus "yes sometimes". Because if rich people attack you need to defend yourself.

Answering "no never" can only imply two things:
1/ you suck it up so much to rich people that if they attack you you spread your ass more
2/ you think rich people will never ever attack you

It is good to see our Frenchineer mini Stalin in training mOgliE again. The right to bear arms is for self defense, not killing rich people. There is a difference between self defense, and hunting down all the kulaks for having more than you.

This is ridiculous!

How can 80% of Americans feel that "violence is never justified against the richs"??

You're the citizens of a country that has nearly never known peace, that has part of its constitution ensuring that you always have the means to defend yourself, but you're against violence when it comes to rich people??

You don't see the contradiction here? xD

Any normal human being should answer that violence can be justified. There are cases where violence is the only answer. Otherwise what's the point of your guns?

Watch out Kulaks, they are coming for you again.

"47% of Strong Socialist Sympathizers Say Violence against the Rich Is Sometimes Justified"

https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/what-americans-think-about-poverty-wealth-work#overview

Why socialism? Because you need it. Watch the movie to see what socialism can do for you.


La Guerre Du Feu (Quest for Fire)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1olqYFMZ7Hg