Tucker Carlson: What is destroying rural America?

[PRB]

Capitalism is destroying rural America.

[r3volution 3.0]

Capitalism is destroying rural America.

I no longer find it possible to identify sarcasm.

[PRB]

I no longer find it possible to identify sarcasm.

I'll help you : I wasn't sarcastic.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'll help you : I wasn't sarcastic.

Thanks

So, to which form of Marxoid derangement do you subscribe?

[PRB]

Thanks

So, to which form of Marxoid derangement do you subscribe?

Kropotkin & Proudhon, not Marx.

[r3volution 3.0]

Kropotkin & Proudhon, not Marx.

Socialists-Revolutionaries then?

[devil21]

Capitalism is destroying rural America.

Please let us know when you see some. Thx.

[PRB]

Socialists-Revolutionaries then?

Anarchist is the best term. but socialist and revolutionaries would also be technically true.

[devil21]

Anarchist is the best term. but socialist and revolutionaries would also be technically true.

The Keynesian economic system is already a very socialist system. We just spend a lot of time, effort and energy lying to each other and ourselves about it.

[r3volution 3.0]

Anarchist is the best term. but socialist and revolutionaries would also be technically true.

I meant the party in Russia around the time of the revolution.

The Socialists-Revolutionaries (SRs) were the only serious opposition to the bolsheviks on the left.

Their anarcho-steal-land ideology was fairly appealing to the otherwise apolitical peasants.

The bolksheviks held no place at all in the peasants' hearts', which is why they had to go literally conquer the villages.

I was going to ask you why your fellows bent over and failed to stop Lenin, but perhaps you aren't familiar with this story.

...maybe hard to blame you, since most of the SRs, having served their purpose early on, were then slaughtered by the bolsheviks.

[PRB]

I meant the party in Russia around the time of the revolution.

The Socialists-Revolutionaries (SRs) were the only serious opposition to the bolsheviks on the left.

Their anarcho-steal-land ideology was fairly appealing to the otherwise apolitical peasants.

The bolksheviks held no place at all in the peasants' hearts', which is why they had to go literally conquer the villages.

I was going to ask you why your fellows bent over and failed to stop Lenin, but perhaps you aren't familiar with this story.

...maybe hard to blame you, since most of the SRs, having served their purpose early on, were then slaughtered by the bolsheviks.

why does anybody fail to stop anybody? lacking the support and guns.

[PRB]

The Keynesian economic system is already a very socialist system. We just spend a lot of time, effort and energy lying to each other and ourselves about it.

no. unless it's some for of workers or public ownership of resources, it's just capitalism. capitalism can be more regulated or more relaxed, but it's still capitalism.

[devil21]

no. unless it's some for of workers or public ownership of resources, it's just capitalism. capitalism can be more regulated or more relaxed, but it's still capitalism.

Taxation is socialist. Social Security is socialist. Debt based money is socialist. It's all forced confiscation and redistribution. Try again?

[r3volution 3.0]

why does anybody fail to stop anybody? lacking the support and guns.

Don't forget lack of will.

The SRs and every other leftist party, including the ones which modern leftist historians (i.e. historians) call "liberal," licked Lenin's boots, let him crap all over every plank of every party's platform, including his own, and at every step excuses were made, and they kept supporting him: because they said that he was better than the Tsar (or then Kerensky). I personally wish that the SRs or one of the other minor socialist parties had successfully challenged Lenin. Then the Whites would have slaughtered the whole gang, undone the revolution, and restored the market economy and sane government generally (and the Tsar).

Lenin, despite, being a psychotic monster, was no dummy; the SRs or anyone else would have been less competent.

...so, you fellas really let us down.

[PRB]

Taxation is socialist. Social Security is socialist. Debt based money is socialist. It's all forced confiscation and redistribution. Try again?

taxation is theft, doesn't mean it's socialist
social security is ponzi scheme, not socialist
debt based money is just debt, it's not socialist by any stretch

capitalism is forced confiscation and redistribution

[PRB]

Don't forget lack of will.

The SRs and every other leftist party, including the ones which modern leftist historians (i.e. historians) call "liberal," licked Lenin's boots, let him crap all over every plank of every party's platform, including his own, and at every step excuses were made, and they kept supporting him: because they said that he was better than the Tsar (or then Kerensky). I personally wish that the SRs or one of the other minor socialist parties had successfully challenged Lenin. Then the Whites would have slaughtered the whole gang, undone the revolution, and restored the market economy and sane government generally (and the Tsar).

Lenin, despite, being a psychotic monster, was no dummy; the SRs or anyone else would have been less competent.

...so, you fellas really let us down.

let who down?

[r3volution 3.0]

let who down?

Civilized humans

[PRB]

Civilized humans

where were you?

[r3volution 3.0]

where were you?

Not born yet (1917)

[PRB]

Not born yet (1917)

yeah, well, when you're old enough you can start your own revolution and not complain, ok?

[devil21]

taxation is theft, doesn't mean it's socialist

Theft then redistribution. Socialist.

social security is ponzi scheme, not socialist

Ponzi then redistribution. Socialist.

debt based money is just debt, it's not socialist by any stretch

Every dollar is someone else's debt and is managed from a central bank.

^^^^^^^^^^
All planks from the Communist Manifesto.

capitalism is forced confiscation and redistribution

Socialist false money system based on forced confiscation of labor and redistribution to others is not capitalism.

[r3volution 3.0]

yeah, well, when you're old enough you can start your own revolution and not complain, ok?

If I had participated in the Russian revolution, I'd be over 100 years old, as would you...

The point is that your "non-Marxoid" socialism is no less objectionable than any other kind, such as Lenin's.

When the chips are down, the "anarchist" socialists have a history of endorsing the guy who starves millions of people to death.

Birds of a feather

[susano]

I meant the party in Russia around the time of the revolution.

The Socialists-Revolutionaries (SRs) were the only serious opposition to the bolsheviks on the left.

Their anarcho-steal-land ideology was fairly appealing to the otherwise apolitical peasants.

The bolksheviks held no place at all in the peasants' hearts', which is why they had to go literally conquer the villages.

I was going to ask you why your fellows bent over and failed to stop Lenin, but perhaps you aren't familiar with this story.

...maybe hard to blame you, since most of the SRs, having served their purpose early on, were then slaughtered by the bolsheviks.

If you have not read this book, GET IT. Look around online for the cheapest copy. They're all used:

https://www.amazon.com/Leaves-Russia...rovich+Sorokin

It's a day by day diary of the October revolution as it went down and it's riveting. I wept when I read it, both times.

[PRB]

If I had participated in the Russian revolution, I'd be over 100 years old, as would you...

So what? if i share their ideology I have to be blamed for their failure, right?

The point is that your "non-Marxoid" socialism is no less objectionable than any other kind, such as Lenin's.

That may be, which is why it's funny you chose to attack it based on what people did 100 years ago

When the chips are down, the "anarchist" socialists have a history of endorsing the guy who starves millions of people to death.

No, you're thinking capitalists

Birds of a feather

sounds like all you got is generalization.

[susano]

why does anybody fail to stop anybody? lacking the support and guns.

There were plenty of guns. It came down to who was more manipulative, power mad and brutal. And, of course, the Bolsheviks were being funded by (((them))).

[PRB]

There were plenty of guns. It came down to who was more manipulative, power mad and brutal. And, of course, the Bolsheviks were being funded by (((them))).

anti-semitic much?

[r3volution 3.0]

If you have not read this book, GET IT. Look around online for the cheapest copy. They're all used:

https://www.amazon.com/Leaves-Russia...rovich+Sorokin

It's a day by day diary of the October revolution as it went down and it's riveting. I wept when I read it, both times.

Thanks for the tip, I'll definitely check it out.

For a broad history, which isn't pro-bolshevik, as most of the histories are, I'd suggest Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution.

[r3volution 3.0]

So what? if i share their ideology I have to be blamed for their failure, right?

That may be, which is why it's funny you chose to attack it based on what people did 100 years ago

No, you're thinking capitalists

sounds like all you got is generalization.

There seems to be some confusion; allow me to clarify:

1. You endorse an ideology fit only for chimpanzees, which has a huge amount of blood and misery on its hands.

2. I am mocking the incompetence of historical advocates of that ideology, who were liquidated by more competent chimp-socialists.

3. I am wishing that your uniquely inept brand of chimp-socialism had won, as then civilized persons could have restored order.

[susano]

Thanks for the tip, I'll definitely check it out.

For a broad history, which isn't pro-bolshevik, as most of the histories are, I'd suggest Richard Pipes' The Russian Revolution.

Thank you. I'll look for it.

Like all history, Russian history is an immense subject matter and endlessly fascinating. Leaves From a Russian Diary is so great because he lived it and nearly died in the process. The daily mass murder and mass starvation he witnessed and he barely escaped with his life. Well written page turner, too, which not all history is.

[r3volution 3.0]

Thank you. I'll look for it.

Like all history, Russian history is an immense subject matter and endlessly fascinating. Leaves From a Russian Diary is so great because he lived it and nearly died in the process. The daily mass murder and mass starvation he witnessed and he barely escaped with his life. Well written page turner, too, which not all history is.

Ah, that reminds me, there's an interesting book called Former People, about the life (or otherwise) of the old aristocracy post-revolution. It's built around excerpts of the diaries of members of several important families (or families which were important before being declared non-people). History in general is often unsavory, the story of conquest and what follows, but I have never read anything as shockingly inhuman as what I've read about the bolshevik revolution, or the French.