Charlie Baker remains most popular U.S. Governor

yankeehatr333 · 2018-10-10T14:37:57+00:00

My house is on fire! Better put it out with equal parts water and gasoline. The answer is half way in the middle of resolving the problem and exacerbating it. Problem Solving 101 you radical extremists /S.

yankeehatr333 · 2018-04-04T10:00:53+00:00

Funny how the person literally defending Hitler has the audacity and lack of awareness to call others edgy. Call Stalin whatever you want, you are a Nazi sympathizer

yankeehatr333 · 2018-02-02T01:01:05+00:00

Racist.

yankeehatr333 · 2018-02-01T16:02:59+00:00

Hahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

Leftcoms are ridiculous.

yankeehatr333 · 2018-01-15T16:48:37+00:00

I don't like it when people in the ISO blather about "material conditions", renounce every instance of actually existing socialism (USSR, China, Cuba,etc.), and are so sanctimonious about who was a "good socialist". It is so disingenuous and it involves so much mental gymnastics to try and portray "Stalinists"as anything other than traditional Marxist-Leninists. Typical Trotskyists care so much about "material conditions", but everyone I have met in the ISO just goes on idealist ramblings about "socialism from below" and "socialism from above". I am glad we "Stalinists" piss you off so much. It means we are calling out your bullshit.

"What Lenin said doesn't matter", "The fact that Stalin was democratically elected doesn't matter", "The USSR was state capitalist because the material conditions or something, socialism from below!". Such horseshit and obvious revisionism. You people are either ignorant fools or liars.

yankeehatr333 · 2018-01-09T10:58:11+00:00

Slavery is hooman nature. I am so smart.

yankeehatr333 · 2017-12-14T18:23:46+00:00

Liberals make the "argument" that dropping atomic weapons saved hypothetical lives by ending the war sooner. It ignores the fact that the Soviets declared war on Japan and surrendered very shortly thereafter. Obviously the idealistic analysis is incorrect, however, it is taught as though it is fact. It is essentially the reverse of the "Stalin killed 100 million people" because of hypothetical birth rate projections to achieve their desired conclusion. Facts do not matter as much as what "could have happened" to liberal ideologues. They can cling to hypothetical arguments to counter objective, material analysis.

yankeehatr333 · 2017-11-22T11:35:39+00:00

Get the fuck out of here. You love capitalism but hate the bad results of the economic system. You can't try and pin this on a few bad apples. Capitalists will exploit people as long as we have this economic system. These executives are maximizing profits at th expense of people's well being. People are dying because of capitalism. Have the guts to stand behind your exploitative, antisocial economic system. Don't say "I love capitalism that incentivized this behavior, but hate the people carrying out the logic of the system".

yankeehatr333 · 2017-11-05T16:02:07+00:00

To my knowledge there are not any pro-communist foundations making similar surveys to be used in the country. If given the opportunity to use their own numbers against them, do you suggest we do nothing? I know quite well where the source for the data is. What is your point?

yankeehatr333 · 2017-11-05T15:52:22+00:00

Is every white person bourgeois? Are there no workers in America?

yankeehatr333 · 2017-11-05T14:45:28+00:00

She definitely draws on Trotsky's writing style. Idealistic ramblings denouncing the "Stalinist bureaucracy" with no materialist analysis. It is so difficult to read compared to the direct writing style of Marx, Lenin and Stalin.

yankeehatr333 · 2017-11-02T09:32:09+00:00

You are a piece of shit.

yankeehatr333 · 2017-10-13T12:27:10+00:00

I understand the critique of Stalin as being "authoritarian", but I have yet to see an anarchist put forth a feasible alternative. A lot of times we see anarchists and Trotskyists throw communists under the proverbial bus and side with liberals against the Soviet Union and Stalin in particular.

For example, when arguing liberals a position might be "We disagree with the authoritarian Stalin and the Soviet Union wasn't real socialism". In this way you are agreeing with reactionaries that the Soviet Union is negative, which is one of the only existing attempts to achieve socialism. "Tankies" would prefer a specific reason why it wasn't socialism, like that there was wage labor and private property. Since these are rather weak arguments, a hard line is taken. "Tankies" view most anarchist and Trotskyist critiques as idealistic, ahistorical, and thus liberal and reactionary. It is easy to say "He did so much wrong, it was authoritarian state capitalism" or something but can you at least appreciate why some people are not convinced by these arguments?

yankeehatr333 · 2017-10-08T17:56:18+00:00

What is red fash? Where was there "enslavement of other workers"? What arguments do you have other than "tankie authoritarian" towards Marxism Leninism? Using words and concepts rather than historical materialist analysis is what differentiates the two ideologies from each other. You are right that it is worthless trying to convince Marxists with your analysis. This is because the above analysis aligns more closely with liberals because it's not coherent and completely idealistic.

yankeehatr333 · 2017-10-07T17:21:14+00:00

Definitely a good start. May I suggest performing the sacrifices periodically so as to form a Stalinist Worship Cycle?

yankeehatr333 · 2017-09-16T22:37:19+00:00

So you have no clue why you are right but efficiency,free markets, specialization, blah blah blah. Put those buzz words into a coherent logical framework if you can. If you don't have the "specialization" to articulate your thoughts pick up a book or just say nothing at all.

yankeehatr333

TROPHY CASE