Catalonia and the Basque Country

Where did it go wrong?
>1800s
>Catalonians and the Basque fight for the traditionalist and Catholic Carlists
>1900s - Modern day
>Catalonians and the Basque fight for (((liberalism))), (((secularism))) and (((globalism)))

Other urls found in this thread:

cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

what website is that?
i wanna now

Why is it always the Leaf making these god awful Sup Forums threads?

>Franco's boys are approaching
>CNT-FAI decide to have a civil war within a civil war
and commies still claim they're not retarded lol

>>Catalonians and the Basque fight for (((liberalism))), (((secularism))) and (((globalism)))
Kill yourself.
>liberalism, secularism
nope
>globalism
Double nope, and not a thing.
>((()))
Fucking kill yourself.

Serous question, why are anarchists grouped with socialists and communists? Communism is all about making the state as big and powerful as possible while anarchism despises the state and deems the very act of property to be theft, right? Shouldn't anarchists be far right, along with libertarians?

>Communism is all about making the state as big and powerful as possible while anarchism despises the state and deems the very act of property to be theft, right?
Wrong. No, to all of that. Communists also despise the state, and anarchism doesn't deem property to be theft. And most of all communism is certainly not about making the state as big and powerful as possible. You're thinking of fascism.

>literally american level of ignorance

>Communists also despise the state
Yeah, in the purely theoretical state that's supposed to succeed the totalitarian socialist dictatorship but never actually comes for *some* reason.

>anarchism doesn't deem property to be theft
That's Proudhon's most famous statement though, and isn't he considered the big daddy of anarchism?

>Serous question, why are anarchists grouped with socialists and communists?

Because the headline is right wing click bait. The site is for everyone left leaning but they can't just say "Liberal dating site" so they need to throw as many ooga booga scary political names they can at it. Anarchist and Communist are 2 really scary ones for their readers.

From the communist viewpoint the state is a tool of class struggle. Once classes are abolished, and everyone in society has equal ownership of the means of production, then the state has no purpose and withers away. In a socialist society the state will continue to exist so long as there continues to be a need for the dictatorship of the proletariat, because there continues to be a class outside of the proletariat, namely capitalists, who fight to privately own the means of production.

>haha fuck the 1%
>but oy vey goy, don't mention (((god's chosen people))) are over-represented in the 1% either!

Exactly what I mean. The state is given extensive powers to fight a class war, and then magically disbands itself rather than -say- continuing the "class struggle" in perpetuity even when the only classes that remain are the communist party and the starving proletariat.

The big problem with communism is that it, unlike (classical) liberalism, denies human nature. Not only that, it denies the very construct of "human nature", fashioning humanity a blank slate that can be molded (by the state, of course) at will to make the ideal soviet man. Hence the gulags, which were (at least on paper) re-education camps that were to turn dissidents into proper Soviet citizens. Commies even went as far as to deny evolution as too bourgeois, and coming up with their own retarded biological system where weeds can "learn" to become productive crops (leading to mass starvation).

Communism is not only something that doesn't work in practice, it doesn't even fucking work on paper. If the leaders of nations really were so angelic that they'd always do the right thing, we wouldn't even fucking need this "class struggle" because the kings and nobles of old would be wise and flawless in their rule.

You know who else is over-represented in the 1%?

White people.

What an outrageous coincidence, right?

Fuck off Sup Forumsleaf.

>but never actually comes for *some* reason.
That "reason" is usually because the entire western world is trying to destroy said country.

>There are lots of rich white people
>Finland is a white-majority country
I wonder why, Schlomo

Because we all know the West tried its damndest to destroy the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1945, right?

The communist party isn't a class. The only classes are the workers, who under socialism a.ka. the lower phase of communism, take control of the state, and the capitalists, who under socialism are expropriated and either become proletariats of remain discontented ex-capitalists until they die.

I'm not sure what "denying of human nature" you're talking about. This is a very unclear and strawman-y argument your putting forward here. The biggest denial of human nature I've ever witnessed has come from liberals imagining that so long as everybody follows the law and agrees not to harm one another, eternal world peace is achieved.

The state isn't given any more power than it already has. The difference is that the aims of the state change from protecting the interests of capitalists to protecting the interests of the workers.

I was talking about globally. So were you, I think. Or were you talking about Finland specifically when you said that (((they))) were over-represented?

Yeah. It did.

Are you being sarcastic on purpose or are you just genuinely fucking retarded?

>The difference is that the aims of the state change from protecting the interests of capitalists to protecting the interests of the workers
except there is no clear line between """"capitalists""""" and workers, you can work for a company and purchase assets with your money, grow your assets and start other companies with your dividends, etc. you can negotiate your working contract like any agreement.

...

The ironing is delicious

The proletariats subsist by offering their labour to capitalists in their privately owned means of production in exchange for wages. The capitalists subsist by taking what is earned through the proletariats labour after subtracting what they return to the proletariats as wages.

I'm talking about capitalists in the class-sense. Not as a job title, like venture capitalists or something.

but these classes don't exist, or rather the majority of people are somewhere in between. most people work a job as well as own stocks, rental houses, bonds, etc.

The mongol is probably a student.

>most people work a job as well as own stocks, rental houses, bonds, etc.
Speak for your own country. And even then, I very much doubt that.

Most companies here even give you shares in the company as part of your salary, my parents own 2 rental houses and we're not even rich or anything, my dad still has a job and works. Most people who own private companies also work for them anyway, there's very few people who just don't work.

Desu even entry level jobs have stock options.
Anyone who's not a wagecuck owns stocks or bonds

This is some very weird selective attention, or what you judge worth seeing. The majority of humans are not in some middle ground between classes. Most people are not what you'd call middle or upper class. Most people work hard jobs for their wages, and struggle to survive on just one of those.

It's not selective, most people here own assets. you can't judge the world as a single economy since we sell to eachother, indians sell to indians, africans sell to africans. Even then, most people in southeast asia and probably elsewhere own their own fruit stands at the markets. Can you name a single place where "most people work hard jobs for wages"? and I do mean wages, not just hard jobs.

cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html
Shut the fuck up you literal retards.