When half of Europe had socialist leaders, that half of Europe was total shit authoritarian countries that oppressed the population, and prevented progress.
That’s because they were authoritarian, not socialist. Just like the Nazis called themselves socialist, despite being obviously authoritarian. Same way that American fascists love to co-opt and redefine words like “liberty, freedom, grooming,” etc.
This guy refuses to engage with the fact that the Zapatistas exist, an anarchist region with at least 300,000 people living under it, and also that Revolutionary Spain existed, an extremely successful example of anarchism in practice which resisted Nazi Germany better than any democratic nation in mainland Europe. I have pointed them out to him a few times now and he just keeps ignoring it, like an NPC in Westworld. It’s more comfortable to deny reality when it lets you go on believing your existing beliefs. Admitting that you’re wrong is hard.
Ah, I see, you’re struggling to debate my ideas on the merits, so you’re resorting to wasting my time. I’m not interested in childish games, I am trying to save lives here. I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is entirely your prerogative. All the best!
Nope you were. IDK where “here” is, only you know that. And it takes only a second to make a link. Also you wanted to make a point, but failing to provide the link you also failed to make your point.
I don’t really give a shit about your point, and apparently you don’t either.
And where did I ask that?
I wrote: “When half of Europe had socialist leaders, that half of Europe was total shit authoritarian countries that oppressed the population, and prevented progress.”
And that’s what you responded to.
I think you are confused and lost. Not just “here” but about politics in general.
When half of Europe had socialist leaders, that half of Europe was total shit authoritarian countries that oppressed the population, and prevented progress.
That’s because they were authoritarian, not socialist. Just like the Nazis called themselves socialist, despite being obviously authoritarian. Same way that American fascists love to co-opt and redefine words like “liberty, freedom, grooming,” etc.
Socialism is authoritarian. There has never existed an example of a Socialist regime that wasn’t.
This guy refuses to engage with the fact that the Zapatistas exist, an anarchist region with at least 300,000 people living under it, and also that Revolutionary Spain existed, an extremely successful example of anarchism in practice which resisted Nazi Germany better than any democratic nation in mainland Europe. I have pointed them out to him a few times now and he just keeps ignoring it, like an NPC in Westworld. It’s more comfortable to deny reality when it lets you go on believing your existing beliefs. Admitting that you’re wrong is hard.
Deafboy said the exact same thing 13 hours before you did. You even replied. You can read my reply there.
Your link doesn’t work.
Which one? They all work for me
The one where you write I can read it here.
Ah, I see, you’re struggling to debate my ideas on the merits, so you’re resorting to wasting my time. I’m not interested in childish games, I am trying to save lives here. I can lead you to water, whether you drink or not is entirely your prerogative. All the best!
Nope you were. IDK where “here” is, only you know that. And it takes only a second to make a link. Also you wanted to make a point, but failing to provide the link you also failed to make your point.
I don’t really give a shit about your point, and apparently you don’t either.
Yet you asked me to explain a very complex topic, just for you. Curious!
And where did I ask that? I wrote: “When half of Europe had socialist leaders, that half of Europe was total shit authoritarian countries that oppressed the population, and prevented progress.”
And that’s what you responded to.
I think you are confused and lost. Not just “here” but about politics in general.