/b/ Siberia

Same, I'm a fascist now, fuck, how could this happen, get these brown people outta here etc

>actual working class people tend to be racist, sexist, xenophobic and transphobic
they are actually legit the least bigoted people in my town. hell, the majority of them fall into one of the categories this poster assumes we hate. This is obviously some petite bourge urbanite.

>>161990
Tbh, name one person; whether they be prole, lumpen, haute, or bourg that doesn't hold any sort of bias against any demographic sub genre

>>161992
>demographic
Are you including class and political ideology in this?
I have a "bias" against landlords, capitalists, zionists, imperialists, and Fascists. That's about as far as my "biases" go.

i hate leftoids so fucking much

>>161993
Come on man, be honest. All those biases you listed are just vague virtue signaling.
Everyone says that shit.

But at the end of the day, everyone has more sincere contempt for sociobiological demographics.
People blame women, Jews, homosexuals, young people, etc for "enabling the elites"

>>162006
>virtue signaling
No they aren't. Also they aren't biases, that's why I was asking how broad your definition was.

>Everyone says that shit.
No they don't.

>People blame
Which people?
You, perhaps. Not me, and not most people I know. My advice to you is to meet more people, maybe interact with actual leftists IRL, and you'll see that your projection here is extraordinarily wrong provided that you're capable of learning new things.

>>161992
The fuck do you mean "demographic"? Because nobody that I willingly associate with is racist, sexist or xenophobic. I or they may have issues with business owners, or cops or politicians or such, but if you're trying to argue that I can't find an example of someone who isn't racist or homophobic or some such you're fucked up and need to find less fucked up people to be around.

>>162009
>No they aren't.

Explain how they aren't.

Also they aren't biases, that's why I was asking how broad your definition was

They are biases. You assume that anyone with more money or resources than you is inherently evil/ignorant/shallow. Never mind that there are plenty of negative traits in lower socioeconomic classes as well. Nothing to do with their economic class, but rather their life pathway.

>No they don't.

Yes they do. Everyone on either side of the political axis points fingers at "the elites". Their impression of "elites" may differ though.

>You, perhaps. Not me, and not most people I know. My advice to you is to meet more people, maybe interact with actual leftists IRL, and you'll see that your projection here is extraordinarily wrong provided that you're capable of learning new things.

As usual, imageboard users like to dictate that "not everyone is like that; you're just projecting" while simultaneously lamenting about "normies" or "sheeple".

Also, the fact you had to add:
>maybe interact with actual leftists IRL

As if though being a dyed-in-the-wool leftist exempts you from having biases.

>>162010
People aren't gonna be homophobic, racist, nor sexist TO YOUR FACE. They may not even be consciously be like that.

Everyone likes to say "I'm colorblind" and "I believe women can be just as capable as men"

They may even consciously promote such sentiments. But deep down, they don't really resonate with racial and gender equality on the fundamental level.


They only accept it as showing how "cultured" they are.

Look at how we mock people for their aesthetics when they're caught in scandal.

>>162009
>Which people?
You, perhaps. Not me, and not most people I know. My advice to you is to meet more people, maybe interact with actual leftists IRL, and you'll see that your projection here is extraordinarily wrong provided that you're capable of learning new things.

So you never read historical quotes or literary themes that patronize women as brainless pet animals. Or how young people are accused of destroying civilization for having differing cultural practices from their elders. Or how Jews are the masterminds behind any ethnogeopolitical crisis.

>>162011
>You assume that anyone with more money or resources than you is inherently evil/ignorant/shallow.
I didn't know what I was getting into when I replied to you for the first time in this thread, I assumed you would have at least a basic understanding of how class works and why the left is opposed to landlords, capitalists, and imperialism.

Here, read some books and basic theory:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/
https://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1979/marxism/ch05.html
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

The socialist bias against landlords and capitalists isn't rooted in strict interpersonal grievance, but in an analysis of what role landlords and capitalists play in a class society - how they get "their" wealth, how it accumulates, how they protect it, and how this role is in antagonism towards workers and benefits at the same time from workers' labor. You should get a good grip on materialism, and then maybe we can have a conversation.

>>162013
Now youre being petty. Youre assigning moral compass to elites based in their quantity of assets. Thats not logical.

I can understand hatred kf the underhanded methods for wealth accumulatiin. But funnily enough, most landlords arent as well-off as you think.

You assume that any landlord or other class of "elite" is unferhanded just becausd they have more nmoney.

Theres alot of underhanded peoole whom are broke. And they make life worse for hardworking peiole

>>162022
>Youre assigning moral compass to elites based in their quantity of assets. Thats not logical.
That's also not what class is.  Read a book.

>>162022
>Youre assigning moral compass to elites based in their quantity of assets.
Wrong. Read the marx image attached. A class aggregate production or destruction of value is what determines its socio historical and moral qualities. Evil classes destroy value. Good classes produce value.

The kind of tree determines the
kind of flower, and the kind of class determines the kind of talk.

The factory worker who stack thousands of boxes, agricultural proletarian, these mean men Confucius speak of with contempt that all exploiter fear, producing metric tonnage of aggregate material a day has more sober political and overall outlook and highest moral qualities than Epstein lord or merchant Walmart worker, or service semi-proletarian mcdonald worker who produce no value. Or doctor. Mao himself says that merchant Walmart workers and teachers are petite bourgeois. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_1.htm
>Theres alot of underhanded peoole whom are broke. And they make life worse for hardworking peiole
Lumpen hobos don't produce value, therefore they are morally bad. In fact, the lumpen mere existence destroys value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm
>The relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases therefore with the potential energy of wealth. But the greater this reserve army in proportion to the active labour army, the greater is the mass of a consolidated surplus population, whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour. The more extensive, finally, the lazarus layers of the working class, and the industrial reserve army, the greater is official pauperism. This is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation.
Marx speaking of lumpen and the unworking surplus population generally says, "whose misery is in inverse ratio to its torment of labour." This means the more well off the lumpen and all otherwise unproductive populations are, the greater it's torment of the proletariat.

>>162022
>But funnily enough, most landlords arent as well-off as you think.
Correct. Western soy marxists like that guy speak of landlords but means their mommy charging them rent, not landlords that exploit peasant. Unlike proletarians tenants intrinsically produce no value.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/housing-question/ch01.htm
<The worker is always cheated of a part of the product of his labour, whether that labour is paid for by the capitalist below, above, or at its value. The tenant, on the other hand, is cheated only when he is compelled to pay for the dwelling above its value. It is, therefore, a complete misrepresentation of the relation between landlord and tenant to attempt to make it equivalent to the relation between worker and capitalist. On the contrary, we are dealing here with a quite ordinary commodity transaction between two citizens, and this transaction proceeds according to the economic laws which govern the sale of commodities in general and in particular the sale of the commodity, land property(…)It is indeed a notorious fact that, apart from increases in the ground rent, rents produce on an average no more than seven per cent per annum on the invested capital (including profit) for the house owner, and out of this sum, repair costs, etc., must be paid. In short, the rent agreement is quite an ordinary commodity transaction which is, theoretically speaking, of no greater and no lesser interest to the worker than any other commodity transaction, with the exception of that which concerns the buying and selling of labor power, and, practically, the worker comes face to face with the rent agreement as one of the thousand forms of bourgeois cheating which I dealt with on page 4 of the reprint, but even then, as I proved there, it is subject to economic regulation.

>>162032
>Mao himself says that merchant Walmart workers and teachers are petite bourgeois.

How thr hell are teachers considered petit-bourh? Unless you mean college teachers, most teachers are bokies that give up every last penny for class resources.

>>162039
Mao was a complete idiot.  That is really all that needs saying there.

>>162032
Leftypol likes to defend prostitution as producing value. Yet they look down on blue collar workers as reactionary chuds to be rid of through automation.

Yet they also indulge in misogynistic sentiments because no girl recognizes their existence.

>>162039
>How thr hell are teachers considered petit-bourh? Unless you mean college teachers, most teachers are bokies that give up every last penny for class resources.
This is very simple to explain. Do teachers till the field? Do teachers build the tractor? Do teachers produce any immediate tangible product, nor any socially aggregate product. No. They are exploiters. Door dash drivers are petite bourgeois.

1.Any proletarian understands this: Being broke does not make person or class good or socially or historically necessary. Teachers produce no value, all value exist by exploiting the proletarian and the peasant.

2. Paying from their own surplus-value, giving back fraction of what theyve already stolen into the bourgeois dictatorship "class resources" is bourgeois philanthropist. Epstein was philanthropist, so are teacher.

3.college teachers are bourgeois. All teachers are bourgeois. They produce no value. Just like mao says.
>>162041
You're the complete idiot. Geniuses like Marx smith and mao all concur: Teachers produce no value.


I provide for your sakes proletarian political economic textbook that Stalin himself helped draft that elucidate these facts. They not idiots. All the great proletarian geniuses, even the bourgeois' greatest economist concur.
https://www.marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch15.htm

>>162048
>This is very simple to explain. Do teachers till the field? Do teachers build the tractor? Do teachers produce any immediate tangible product, nor any socially aggregate product. No. They are exploiters. Door dash drivers are petite bourgeois.
Maotism at its finist right here.  Class is not about who produces surplus value and how much.  Class is a material relationship to the means of production.  Does the teacher control his means of production?  No, he does not, so he is not in any way bourgeois.  Controlling access to the means of production and effectively renting them to wage laborers is what being bourgois is.
>I provide for your sakes proletarian political economic textbook that Stalin himself helped draft that elucidate these facts. They not idiots.
Stalin is notorious for being a terrible theorist.

>>162049
You're retarded. Read stalin drafted textbook. Read mao. I've already given it to you. Seriously. Read these things and do not reply, or just kill yourself. The parasite, in any form, always tries to justify itself, so we can solemnly tell them everything they say is a lie.
>Class is not about who produces surplus value and how much.
Wrong. The material laws of all class' relations (not merely to production) are determined by value production, i.e., class' revenues and their sources. Therefore, class simply is exploiter and exploited, productive classes and those classes who exist by exploiting surplus-value produced by productive classes. Read Communist manifesto. Our "marxist" here say exploitation ought not even be quantified because "class is not about who produces value or how much." What then are these parasites who you defend relations' to production then? Those who subsist off the social aggregate product yet produce nothing? Typical, this parasite provides no substance, neither quantitative nor qualitative analysis, nor answer these simple questions. Without our guidance they assuredly reply with further Confucian notions
>Does the teacher control his means of production?  No, he does not, so he is not in any way bourgeois.
Wrong. The teacher receive a share of surplus-value in exchange for oppressing proletarian. Like lord to the priest, the lord pay his ties to control the peasant. The bourgeois pay the petite bourgeois teacher and The teacher is willing oppressor and exploiter of the proletarian. The teacher controls the means of production as much as any other petite bourgeois, as junior partner of exploiter class bloc.

In socialist society, however, the teacher, the manager and entrepreneur, all the ones who submit to the national plan and to being absolved of being bourgeois by long hard path of socialist redemption by labor reformation, washing his brain, is proletarianized and no longer bourgeois.
>Controlling access to the means of production and effectively renting them to wage laborers is what being bourgois is.
Wrong. The bourgeoisie is the class that exploits the proletariat. Any toll-man, highway robber, or feudal lords is "bourgeois" by your retarded, unscientific, bourgeois criteria. In medieval Europe, a lord or wealthy landholder often held a legal monopoly on the village flour mill, wine press, or oven. Peasants were legally forbidden from grinding their own grain by hand; they had to pay a fee (often a percentage of their crop) to use the mill.

Does a peasant grinding grain for his own subsistence produce value for his exploiter? Does it produce any value for anyone at all? No. The value of the grain is destroyed in consumption, in social reproduction. It merely redistributes some pre-existing value to the lord with the rest being consumed by the peasant, and therefore cannot even be called exploitation. Likewise with all service workers.

Your outlook of exploitation couldn't be more wrong or more vulgar, therefore you cannot understand what class is, therefore yYOU are the class collaboration who does utopian notions of non-exploitation

The social imperialist parasite and his empty and degenerated political economic always resorts to abstraction and semantic pontification, giving the most hollow lesson in "marxism" while spitting on Mao Stalin and Engels Marx all the same.

>>162048
Teachers are babysitters and personal trainers for large numbers of other people's kids. It's more difficult than working in retail but all service industry worker's value lies in service among the division of labor. No one company builds the whole tractor but each specialty co contributes to the whole. Theory is fine but the application of it is another story.

All work and no play makes Felix a dull boy.

>>162051
>Read stalin drafted textbook. Read mao.
Stalin and Mao are shit theorists.  That is not a secret.  Both, whether intentionally or unintentionally, deviated fundamentally from Marx.
>The material laws of all class' relations (not merely to production) are determined by value production
Wrong.  Class relations are individuals' relationships to the means of production.  Value is just a function of markets.  That's what your shit is supposed to justify, you understand–"socialist" markets.  Why do you think this particular notion came Stalin and Mao?  They were attempting to justify the unjustifiable.  Just never mind that "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" ultra stuff.
>In socialist society, however, the teacher, the manager and entrepreneur
>socialist society
>entrepreneur
>socialist
>capitalist
My god, is third-worldism retarded.  But doesn't this just explain everything about third-worldism?  Everything comes around to "capitalism is not capitalism when we do it."
>The bourgeoisie is the class that exploits the proletariat.
Every parasitic class gains from the production of every working class.  Lenin had the idea that surplus-value producing workers who formed a "labor aristocracy" indirectly exploited other workers.  That was crap of course; Marx had the right of it when he coined "labor aristocracy" as a sarcastic jibe.
>YOU are the class collaboration who does utopian notions of non-exploitation
Oh, just call me an "ultra" and drop the farce.

>>162051
Oh, and of course you are a class collaborationist.  It's on your fucking flag.  What do you think those five stars mean?  It's not a secret.

>>162055
>you are a class collaborationist.  It's on your fucking flag.  What do you think those five stars mean?  It's not a secret.
Wrong. The four stars will remain on the flag to honor the revolutionary united front's historic victory of China's New Democratic Revolutionary Era that established the socialist system by 1956 https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/8th_congress.htm and eliminated the exploiting class by 1981. https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/history/01.htm
Removing the stars is bourgeois nihilism, disregarding historical contributions of the revolutionary classes. The sacred stars on the flag exist to honor the revolutionary deeds of the peasants and proletariat, and the eliminated classes, and do not represent existing class structure because the national and petty-bourgeoisie were eliminated by 1981. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated.

First worldist libertarian socialism pedophile ziocom dsa bordigite leftypol transhumanist faggot's accusations of "class collaboration" disintegrate when reckoned with fact that the bourgeoisie in China was eliminated in 1981. You are Confucian Teacher-lover
>>162054
>Class relations are individuals' relationships to the means of production.
Wrong. Class' relationships to the means of production are determined by quality of if they produce or destroy value. Please top repeating your self soothing bourgeois tautological
>Just never mind that "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" ultra stuff.
China's Communist labor and socialist wage system is from according to ability and pay according to need. Wages under the socialist system are fundamentally different from wages under the capitalist system. Under the capitalist system, labor power is a commodity. Wages are incomes for the sale of labor power. They embody the relations between the employer and the employee, between the exploiter and the exploited, existing between the capitalist and the worker. Under the socialist system, workers are masters of the state and the enterprises. Labor power is not a commodity. It cannot be sold to themselves. Wages are no longer a transformation of the value or price of labor power. They are a form of distribution of personal consumer goods according to the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor." The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated. Private property in China is not capital, it is proletarian personal property and independent private proletarian enterprise. In China, wage-labour is decommodified. Capitalist wage relations-where wages are the price of labour-power, they usually fluctuate, unlike the price of other commodities, below value, not always enable the workers to satisfy even the minimum of their requirements-do not exist in Communist China, where with the abolition of the system of hired labour the law of value of labour-power has completely lost its validity as the regulator of wages as the basic economic law of socialism necessitates the maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural requirements of the whole of society through the emancipation of wages from the limitations of capitalism that enables them to be extended to that volume of consumption permitted by the existing productivity of society and required by the full development of the worker's individuality where real wages constantly rise in accord with the growth and perfecting of socialist production through the law of distribution according to work that determines each worker's share in the social product by the quantity and quality of his work.
>Every parasitic class gains from the production of every working class.
All you do is preach tautology because everything you say is wrong

>>162059
>Removing the stars is bourgeois nihilism
One of the stars represents the bourgeoisie.
>The sacred stars
Kek
>and the eliminated classes
LOL, pic related
>Wrong. Class' relationships to the means of production are determined by quality of if they produce or destroy value. Please top repeating your self soothing bourgeois tautological
Wrong.  Your shit is just a post hoc justification for being a bourgeois state.
>Wages under the socialist system are fundamentally different from wages under the capitalist system. Under the capitalist system, labor power is a commodity. Wages are incomes for the sale of labor power. They embody the relations between the employer and the employee, between the exploiter and the exploited, existing between the capitalist and the worker.
Just don't call all that surplus-value extraction exploitation!  See, anarchists?  The tankies can do it, too!
>"from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor."
That's not marxist.
>They are a form of distribution of personal consumer goods according to the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor."
Hey, isn't that what the Chicago School says about American wage labor?
>In China, wage-labour is decommodified. Capitalist wage relations-where wages are the price of labour-power, they usually fluctuate, unlike the price of other commodities, below value, not always enable the workers to satisfy even the minimum of their requirements-do not exist in Communist China, where with the abolition of the system of hired labour the law of value of labour-power has completely lost its validity as the regulator of wages as the basic economic law of socialism necessitates the maximum satisfaction of the constantly growing material and cultural requirements of the whole of society through the emancipation of wages from the limitations of capitalism that enables them to be extended to that volume of consumption permitted by the existing productivity of society and required by the full development of the worker's individuality where real wages constantly rise in accord with the growth and perfecting of socialist production through the law of distribution according to work that determines each worker's share in the social product by the quantity and quality of his work.
That is one long, slippery way of saying we pay our workers cheap and work them hard which is scoialism.
>All you do is preach tautology because everything you say is wrong
That's Lenin, you simp.  Even Mao was a leninist.

>>162060
LOL, forgot pic

>>162060
>One of the stars represents the bourgeoisie.
Wrong. The stars represent the revolutionary united front that build Communism in China. Two of the stars represent the legacy of the revolutionary bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie was eliminated by 1982. The bourgeois elements were allowed to reform through labor in the enterprise.
>bourgeois state.
Wrong. The bourgeoisie was eliminated by 1982. The socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production has been completed, the system of exploitation of man by man abolished, and a socialist system established. The exploiting class, as a class, has been eliminated.
>Just don't call all that surplus-value extraction exploitation!  See, anarchists?  The tankies can do it, too!
Wrong. Surplus-value as category is abolished in China. In China, labor power is no longer a commodity. The laborer is no longer exploited. All of the value created by the producer is at the service of the laboring class. The distribution of the labor remuneration fund of the producer and the social fund is regulated by an overall consideration of common and individual interests and the long-term and short-term interests of the laboring people.
>"from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor." That's not marxist.
Wrong. It is Marxist, certainly more than your imperialist bourgeois "socialist" utopia  you will never live to see, a world without a proletariat, where parasites like you somehow still get your treats, like how same parasite exploit proletarian today. In Communist China, bourgeoisie forced to work for socialist wages until they were eliminated, as it should be.
>Hey, isn't that what the Chicago School says about American wage labor?
Wrong. In capitalism, the proletariat doesn't sell its own labor. The proletariat sells its labor-power generally below its own value. In Communist China, labor power is no longer a commodity (ut supera.)
>pay our workers cheap and work them hard which is scoialism.
Wrong. In capitalist society, because the means of production are controlled by the capitalist, the destitute worker can only sell his labor power and subject himself to exploitation and oppression by the capitalist. In socialist society, because the means of production are controlled by the proletariat and the whole laboring people, a socialist public ownership system is established. The distribution power is controlled by the proletariat and the laboring people and the principle of distribution favors the laboring people. The laboring people cannot sell their own labor-power to themselves. The retired wharf worker Ma Hung-liang sang: "In the new society, we wharf workers become proud masters. We are taken care of in birth, old age, illness and death. The benevolence of the Communist Party and Chairman Mao is higher than heaven!" These sentences represent the true feelings of the working class who are liberated in the new society. They reflect the immense superiority of socialist production relations. It is very important to understand the essential difference between capitalist wages and socialist wages and the fundamental difference between the distribution relations of the new and the old societies. It can strengthen our responsibility as masters of our destiny and elevate the consciousness of socialist labor.

>>162061
Nothing is more Communist than proletarian entrepreneurhood. The most creative, selfless, and genius from the proletarian masses become proletarian entrepreneurs, burdening the risk and the toil, providing innovation and prosperity.

>It's okay to be racist if you have to work for a living.
Ah, another keyboard warrior that's never organized a day in his life.

>>162066
>>162060
>>162059
>>162055

ITT: anons whom care about symbolism than real-world models it stands for.

>>162070
uyghas really do be arguing about the political consequences of some shapes and colors

>>162070
>anons whom care about symbolism than (real-world models it stands for)
Wrong. Grasping the symbol and the denotation are one in the same in this case because The thing they represent no longer exist. New Democratic Revolutionary United Front evolved into Socialist United Front by 1956 when the system of exploitation was abolished and socialist transformation was completed. The bourgeoisie was eliminated in China by 1982, marking begining of New Patriotic United Front.

>>162072
>It's not big deal that white workers want to subjugate black workers, what a woke scold!
If only everyone were as enlightened as you.