Anonymous blue__wave 6d

your incessant bootlicking never ceases to crack me up, but damn does it fit your character well.

15

Anonymous #2 6d

Never said it was good, it’s obviously bad. I’m making a point by asking a question dipshit.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

a question that you “ask” every single time you see someone criticizing capitalism. you’re not making any point, you’re just slobbering over that boot like it’s your favorite lollipop:

10

Anonymous #2 6d

I haven’t made the point yet I just asked a question 🫩. You guys are so desperate to spaz out and find something I say problematic. If I had all these secret evil opinions I would just share them it’s an anonymous app lol.

-1

Anonymous #2 6d

Also this is the first time I ever asked this question to my knowledge, what a weird rewriting of history.

-1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

you do just openly share them, and you’re not able to recognize that you do. please do expand on what your point was, behind “what’s wrong with democratic systems being captured by the rich” I’d LOVE to hear this stupidity.

7

Anonymous #2 6d

So my point was gonna be just like how having rich people capture democracy creates bad incentives so does having a one party state.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

oh really? You haven’t gotten defensive in the past when people discuss valid criticisms of capitalism? Joining the conversation with something along the lines of “what’s so bad with capitalism”, then ignoring everything people say in attempts to inform you? Obviously I wasn’t saying this exact question, but that you engage in this behavior quite frequently.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

who tf brought up a one party state, aside from you, and how tf does that have anything to do with this convo? are you attempting to imply that the opposite of the rich capturing democratic systems or states is a one-party system?

1

Anonymous #2 6d

Yeah I’m pro capitalism but I’m against democracies being totally captured by private interest. I didn’t say “what’s so bad with capitalism” we’re just inventing quotes in our head. I don’t even think you get what I was saying originally.

5

Anonymous #2 6d

Also I like how being defensive after you spazzed out after I asked one question lol.

1

Anonymous #2 6d

Op is openly for one party states. No that’s not what I’m implying lol.

3

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

OP is critiquing social democracy, a valid critique I might add, but no where do I see any advocacy of a uniparty state within this post, unless you’re trying to deduce that based on their characterized persona. Your sole comment in response to OP’s critique of social democracy was “just curious, what’s bad about democratic systems being captured by the rich?”

1

Anonymous #2 6d

and I didn’t say you asked that in this post, but let’s not pretend you haven’t posed that question before upon critique being offered, but I will add that you provided that question about capitalism in the exact format that you provided this question regarding democratic systems being captured by the rich. I appreciate you clarifying that you’re against private interest capturing democratic systems, but your initial comment suggested otherwise - prompting my chain of questioning.

1

Anonymous #2 6d

I wasn’t going to get involved in this, but yes, I support [Marxist] one-party states. I see working-class intraparty democracy as superior to ruling-class multiparty democracy for a variety of reasons.

6

Anonymous xi.jinping 6d

I feel like it’s kind of self evident why a Democratic system being captured by the rich and powerful is a problem

3

Anonymous #2 6d

I’ve talked to op before, they are lol, op can just correct me if I’m wrong on that.

1

Anonymous #2 6d

Lmao see I told you.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 6d

Yes I’m making a point about how you’re contradicting yourself I’m not just asking why it’s wrong lmao. Idk why that’s super confusing for everyone.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

And if you claim to be against the capture of Democratic systems by an elite that has a lot of capital, I wonder why on earth would you ask me that question to begin with?

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 6d

Bc it’s a contradiction, bc a one party state is made up of a group of elites that have no incentive to listen to the people they’re governing just like if rich people captured a democracy.

0

Anonymous xi.jinping 6d

Ahh I see, in all fairness I’m personally opposed to uniparty states, however I do see what you mean if we’re talking attempting a Marxist implementation within a primarily capitalist society, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” in a sense (I do believe there’s better ways to achieve this, but ultimately the goal is the dissolution of nation states anyway) apologies blue_wave for the initial confusion, initially I thought you were just defending private interest lol so that’s my bad

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 6d

Again I feel like an internal critique shouldn’t be this hard of a concept but ig it is lol. I’ll make it clear every time I ask a question what my specific intent is bc that’s apparently needed.

1

Anonymous #2 6d

No I’m used to the constant reading into my intentions instead of just addressing what I’m saying. I’m sure you’ll be doing it in another couple of days so I forgive you when you do it then too.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

imo, assuming nefarious intentions of a worker-led uniparty on the premises of capitalist-led uniparties showcasing nefarious self-serving interests isn’t a fair comparison however that doesn’t mean that a worker led uniparty can’t fall into the trap of the issue of “majority rule”, but I don’t think a worker led uniparty necessarily always turns out nefarious.

1

Anonymous #2 6d

It’s not assuming nefarious intentions it’s looking at what they’re incentivized to do. What’s a worker led one party state that you think hasn’t fallen into some kind of authoritarianism?

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

you literally only stated “what’s bad with democratic systems being captured by the rich?” calm tf down lmao, don’t act like you made your intentions obvious.

1

Anonymous #2 6d

I didn’t but you assumed the worst that’s my point lol. You can just ask me if I think that’s a bad thing next time. Instead going on an entire pointless ramble where you end up being wrong. I’m just trying to help you save time.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

did I claim to be defending one that exists? I’m stating that assuming outcomes in this context is like comparing apples to oranges. capitalist-led uniparties are incentivized very differently than proletariat-led ones, at least in theory. this does not mean proletariat-led uniparties are incapable of implementing the same tactics of capitalist-led ones, but theoretically they should have fundamentally different goals by nature of the ruling socioeconomic class: capitalists or workers.

6

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

and I literally acknowledged, and apologized, once i recognized I was wrong. that might be foreign concept to you, but you’re not quite capable of weaponizing someone being wrong after their already acknowledged and apologized for it.

3

Anonymous #2 6d

they already*

1

Anonymous #2 6d

Sure and I’m glad you apologized but I’m going pretty hard after it bc the constant intention reading I run into is annoying so I’m cool with going after people for it.

-1

Anonymous #2 6d

Again I’m not assuming outcomes I’m looking at what they’re incentivized to do, and their behavior matches up with their incentivizes that’s my point. Sure but they don’t, most “worker parties” currently head authoritarian weird state capital states.

1

Anonymous blue__wave 6d

I see what you’re trying to say and I genuinely don’t think you understand how the Marxist DotP works, Capital is not the ruling force of China, Vietnam, North Korea, Laos, or Cuba. Market formations and rich people exist but they are subservient to the state apparatus, not the other way around. The state apparatus is subservient in turn to the party and the working population more broadly

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 6d

You’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’m talking about the state apparatus, the state doesn’t have an incentive to listen to the people they govern like a liberal democracy would.

1

Anonymous xi.jinping 6d

Why would a leader of a one party state prioritize what’s best for their people over their own personal power? There’s no real electoral punishment like there would be in a liberal democracy.

1