"This theory when applied didn't end like in the book, therefore it's not really that theory"
Communism without actually sharing isn't communism. Democracy without fair elections isn't democracy. Socialism without the socialisation of the benefit of production is not socialism. Your ignorance of these things doesn't change what they are.
Again, the "the theory when applied doesn't look like in the book so it's not real communism"
No. The theory when applied doesn't follow the book. The difference is something called contextual nuance, and you have no grasp of it.
Your position is like North Korea claiming democracy doesn't work because they say they are one and it's not working.
The theory when applied ends up not following the book... I wonder why?
The theory when applied ends up not following the book... I wonder why?
Because you can't read, as proven.
The difference is something called contextual nuance, and you have no grasp of it.
Your position is like North Korea claiming democracy doesn't work because they say they are one and it's not working.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
North Korea's definitely working. If it didn't work it would have collapsed. It's still hell, but a working one
Is the Democratic Republic Of North Korea a Democracy? Because you're trying to say yes.
Like I said, it's called contextual nuance and you have no grasp of it.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
No, it's not a democracy because it doesn't even bother following actual democratic principles. It's just like Napoleon's idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I'm being democratic.
Basically Cuba on steroids
Exactly, and that's why everything you've ever known as communism and socialism is in exactly the same boat. They didn't follow the actual communistic or socialist principals. They were all little north Korea pretending to be those things.
Except they did
Like I said, you can continue acting stupid, but in your case it's probably not an act.
No, it's not a democracy because it doesn't even bother following actual democratic principles. It's just like Napoleon's idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I'm being democratic.
Basically Cuba on steroids
I copy-pasted my answer because you copy-pasted your comment
The only thing like Napoleon's around here is your ego. Shame you don't have the brains to go with it.
Love your response, totally not an ad hominem
Of course it's an ad hominem dumbass, I was insulting your lack of intelligence because I've already destroyed your argument but you're literally too fucking stupid to clue on.
If you want to keep being clowned on like a child, keep being as ignorant as one. Running circles around you as you try to keep up is great practice. They say you shouldn't argue with idiots like yourself, but that's a skill issue imo.
I don't expect your inevitable reply to miraculously be tempered with newfound cognizance either. I expect you to continue to act within your very restrictive personal limitations.
Exactly when did you "destroy my argument"? I bet it's right next to the tooth fairy
The messages are there, I'd tell you to read them but comprehension isn't your strong suite given that you didn't pick anything up the first time through.
North Korea calls itself democratic. Everyone in the country votes for a new leader every five years. It's just that there's only one name on the ballot.
One would be foolhardy to call that democracy.
One would be even more foolhardy to argue that this means that democracy is a stupid idea.
"This theory when applied didn't end like in the book, therefore it's not really that theory"
Communism without actually sharing isn't communism. Democracy without fair elections isn't democracy. Socialism without the socialisation of the benefit of production is not socialism. Your ignorance of these things doesn't change what they are.
Again, the "the theory when applied doesn't look like in the book so it's not real communism"
No. The theory when applied doesn't follow the book. The difference is something called contextual nuance, and you have no grasp of it.
Your position is like North Korea claiming democracy doesn't work because they say they are one and it's not working.
The theory when applied ends up not following the book... I wonder why?
Because you can't read, as proven.
The difference is something called contextual nuance, and you have no grasp of it.
Your position is like North Korea claiming democracy doesn't work because they say they are one and it's not working.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
North Korea's definitely working. If it didn't work it would have collapsed. It's still hell, but a working one
Is the Democratic Republic Of North Korea a Democracy? Because you're trying to say yes.
Like I said, it's called contextual nuance and you have no grasp of it.
You can continue acting stupid, but in your case I'm not sure it's an act.
No, it's not a democracy because it doesn't even bother following actual democratic principles. It's just like Napoleon's idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I'm being democratic.
Basically Cuba on steroids
Exactly, and that's why everything you've ever known as communism and socialism is in exactly the same boat. They didn't follow the actual communistic or socialist principals. They were all little north Korea pretending to be those things.
Except they did
Like I said, you can continue acting stupid, but in your case it's probably not an act.
They "socialised" the means of production
No, it's not a democracy because it doesn't even bother following actual democratic principles. It's just like Napoleon's idea of democracy: I am the people, therefore if I have absolute power I'm being democratic.
Basically Cuba on steroids
I copy-pasted my answer because you copy-pasted your comment
The only thing like Napoleon's around here is your ego. Shame you don't have the brains to go with it.
Love your response, totally not an ad hominem
Of course it's an ad hominem dumbass, I was insulting your lack of intelligence because I've already destroyed your argument but you're literally too fucking stupid to clue on.
If you want to keep being clowned on like a child, keep being as ignorant as one. Running circles around you as you try to keep up is great practice. They say you shouldn't argue with idiots like yourself, but that's a skill issue imo.
I don't expect your inevitable reply to miraculously be tempered with newfound cognizance either. I expect you to continue to act within your very restrictive personal limitations.
Exactly when did you "destroy my argument"? I bet it's right next to the tooth fairy
The messages are there, I'd tell you to read them but comprehension isn't your strong suite given that you didn't pick anything up the first time through.
Thank you for proving my point.
Whatever you say, just stop whining
No one's forcing you to espouse your stupidity.
And you keep whining...
North Korea calls itself democratic. Everyone in the country votes for a new leader every five years. It's just that there's only one name on the ballot.
One would be foolhardy to call that democracy.
One would be even more foolhardy to argue that this means that democracy is a stupid idea.
Likewise with socialism.