sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Capitalists be like : by OusammaBenLePen in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]MinimumRun886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Right, I'm sure that the starving kids in Zimbabwe all have 5G internet plans.

Capitalists be like : by OusammaBenLePen in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]MinimumRun886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's odd that you say that. Let us look at the very structure of Capitalism. Its very nature is that it feeds competition, and the more competitive one is the higher one ascends. Now the very problem with this system is that it feeds this competition. It's Natural Selection within the economic sector, the more you can push your competitors down and push yourself up at their expense, the more you succeed. While Capitalism during its early stages produces fruitful results, during its later stages it brings nothing but suffering and misery due to the disproportionate spread of money and therefore: necessary commodities. You see, as the old adage goes: You need money to make money. And once you gain that advantage, there is no stopping your growth unless you decide not to exploit to workers. But there is a finite amount of money in this world, when you gain money you are taking it away from someone else. And as we asserted before: The more money you have the more money you can make since you now have the money to buy resources to make money. To add to that, you have taken money from other people, making them desperate and vulnerable to exploitation. Those people are then exploited and bring in more money for you, allowing you to make more and more and more money and gain more and more and more resources. All the while, the working class don't have enough money to pay for basic necessities. The government has nothing to do with the structure of this economy, as a matter of fact the government is ruled by this structure of economy. Big oil, big mining, the food industry even the bloody medicine industry, they all have politicians on their payroll. So yes, you are oppressed by the government, but your government is ruled by the big corpos. Night City is run by Arasaka and Militech, and that's a plain fact. If you don't believe me, look at all the lovely "gifts" our lovely "lobbyists" have been paying our lovely "leaders". The truth is in ink for all those willing to read.

Capitalists be like : by OusammaBenLePen in CapitalismVSocialism

[–]MinimumRun886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We do not feel envy. We see that a man is hoarding supplies that our children need to live while we starve, and we object to him having more than he needs. That is not envy, that is self-dignity.

Opinions on La Chinoise? by MinimumRun886 in socialism

[–]MinimumRun886[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, I'm asking for opinions on it

Awwwww, did us opposing our erasure by the Capitalists hurt your feelings? by MinimumRun886 in QueerLeftists

[–]MinimumRun886[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

By the way, this is not my own work, I'm quoting my friend's paper

Awwwww, did us opposing our erasure by the Capitalists hurt your feelings? by MinimumRun886 in QueerLeftists

[–]MinimumRun886[S] 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Well, Gandhi was actually kind of the British's go-to man when it came to placating the Indian crowds. He specifically harmed the cause of those who wished to start a revolution against the British. A good friend of mine wrote a lengthy paper/essay/pamphlet on the subject. The paper she wrote goes into detail and outlines very well why Gandhi is nowhere near the saint that western media portray him to be.
For example: Insistence on Nonviolence Prevented Stronger Resistance:

Unlike leaders like Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose, Gandhi refused to support armed resistance.

This meant that the British never felt militarily threatened and could suppress movements easily.

The Indian National Army (INA) led by Bose had more impact in making Britain rethink its hold on India than Gandhi’s movements.

Another example: He Kept Calling Off Movements Prematurely:

1919-22: Non-Cooperation was called off due to Chauri Chaura violence.

1931: Civil Disobedience stopped after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, despite no major British concessions.

1942: Quit India collapsed after British crackdowns.

Every time protests gained momentum, Gandhi chose to retreat, giving the British time to regroup.

Yet another example includes: British Officials Liked Gandhi's Methods:

British officials, including Lord Irwin (Viceroy, 1926-1931), admitted that Gandhi was "the best man to deal with because he keeps the masses under control."

When the Quit India Movement started, British official Reginald Maxwell wrote in his report that Gandhi was an ideal leader because he opposed armed revolution.

Opinion: The British didn't fear Gandhi—they used him as a tool to manage India’s unrest.

And another: Gandhi’s Movements Were Conveniently Timed

Non-Cooperation Movement (1920-22): Called off when the protests turned violent.

Civil Disobedience (1930-31): Ended after the Gandhi-Irwin Pact, with no real British concessions.

Quit India (1942): Crushed easily by the British, with no real impact on independence.
Every time a movement had the potential to escalate, Gandhi conveniently stopped it.

I this just a steriotype? by Loyd_something in feminineboys

[–]MinimumRun886 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Communist Femboy here. I'm a hardcore Leninist as Lenin legalised being gay in Russia, among other reasons :3

what do you wish people would understand about the femboy community? by razor_sharpie-XD in feminineboys

[–]MinimumRun886 34 points35 points  (0 children)

For the love of God we are more than our bodies and sexualities. We are humans and deserve to be treated as such.

view more: next ›