[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Matrix

IRC Chat

Pleroma

Mumble

Telegram

Discord



File: 1629985245501.jpg (118.47 KB, 1125x1394, 345r4rt34f34.jpg)

 No.449782[Last 50 Posts]

A vote has passed in the congress to establish a right wing debate general to argue against right wing talking points and keep them from leaking out onto the rest of the board. From this point on all right wing discussion points should be confined to this thread and this thread will be used for debunking them and generally punching rightoids in the dick. All right wing nonsense posted outside of this thread will be subject to a deletion hence forth if deemed necessary.
>>

 No.449791

I'm a little uneasy about the power to simply delete without explanation. What if a post actually isn't rightoid and has simply been misinterpreted?
>>

 No.449798

>>449791
Nobody has time for rightoid autism.
The problem with rightoids is that they assume everyone else is as stupid as they are.
They think their lies are clever enough and subtle enough, that nobody can see exactly what they're doing, and why they're doing it.

That and the repetitive nature of their talking-points is what makes them so annoying, even to libs.
That's why they deserve to be vigorously "fact checked" off the internet, until their rectums prolapse.
>>

 No.449810

What's to prevent arguments from looping forever once an impasse is reached? For example, if an argument enters the realm of questioning the source itself and rejecting any sources besides the ones given by the anon in question, what then? The argument then just degenerates into something that can never be resolved. How do you also stop gishgalloping or arguments being diverted by non-sequiturs?
>>

 No.449812

>>449782

A good iniative. We need less spam tgreads of that type.
>>

 No.449818

>>449791

>I'm a little uneasy abo-


Reported to the NKVD, please have you papers ready for review by /leftypol/ in 1 hour.
>>

 No.449869

>>449791
Yea it would be better to shunt it into this thread, wouldn't it? Instead of deleting it.
There was one thread which disappeared recently. I don't know if it got deleted but it was asking something like what do you commies do IRL apart from posting on this imageboard? Which even if posted as a gotcha is a reasonable question. And if it was deleted a couple of good replies got vaporised.
>>

 No.449871

Shouldn’t delete, should lock and link to this thread
>>

 No.449915

Good I'll see you faggots there.
Heil Hitler.
>>

 No.449922

File: 1630030185734.png (222.65 KB, 681x894, 1629268704655.png)

>>449915
>Good I'll see you faggots there.
>Heil Hitler
>>

 No.449924

File: 1630030260136.png (222.65 KB, 681x894, 1629268704655.png)

>>449915
>Good I'll see you faggots there.
>Heil Hitler
>>

 No.449955

>>449915
Well while we are on the subject of faggotry, how come so many you internet far rightists turn out to be e.g. hamster - microwaving nut jobs and Nazi fetishists? Why don't you just get into bondage or something? Instead of drooling over Nazi war crimes.

You all seem to glamorise it, but even in WWII there was internal dissent about the Nazi regime. I'm reading The Third Reich at War (Richard J. Evans). I've got to a bit where a regular army officer Lt. - Col. Lothar von Bischoffshausen comes across Jews being beaten to death at a petrol station forecourt, with SS complicity. (27 June 1941,Kovno,Lithuania). He stopped an SS man from stopping a photographer from recording the crime, and reported the killings to his superior officers. And this wasn't a liberal either, von Bischoffshausen was a decorated soldier and even an ex-member of the Freikorps himself.

Apart from any political or moral objections, all the mystery you need is in Germanic heathenry, anyway.But you're probably too lazy to learn the runes.
>>

 No.449970

File: 1630061968028.jpg (13.47 KB, 275x184, descarga (18).jpg)

A socialist would look at this photo and cry, stomp his feet, shout and roll on the floor. "inequality" he yells,and others chime in.
but, a well-meaning,down-to-earth young man would say "it is what it is;and it can be otherwise" YES,my friend! you can go from the slums to the towers,but only if you Believe you can.
no one can meditate for you,be positive for you, only You can. the towers are as far as you think they are.
>>

 No.449972

>A socialist would look at a society that clearly has the resources to provide for all their citizens but refuses to with disgust
Yes
Is this supposed to be an own?
>>

 No.449974

>>449972
no no no, my friend. People get what they deserve and deserve what they get. if a bunch of individuals cant meditate/visualize this prosperity, shoving wealth down their throats will be pointless;it will disappear anyways.
social inequality is naught but a reflection of people's level of Attainmen.
now,i dont deny some rich people commit fornication,but they end up overdosing on coke on jumping to their deah,so theres that. they reap what they sow(fornication=death)
>>

 No.449975

>>449974
Literal nothing argument, you need to already be drowning in ideology to think its rational for a society to leave a massive chunk of its populace in poverty when it can give the entire populace a decent standard of living

Arguments about "human nature" being insurmountable so poverty will always exist is better than what you came up with
>>

 No.449976

>>449975
poverty MUST exist it,it HAS TO. its the Universal Order for low-vibration people to be economically unsuccesful;there's no way around this.
gold,silver,jewels, to the winner go the spoils! the poors are just AS capable of riches AS the rich. but,you know what? no one can do someone's else meditation for them.

Elon Musk doesnt masturbate;is-it-not Due and Proper for him to be a bilionarie? Unions suck the blood out of high frequency individuals. food stamps are a conterfeit visualization,where they shove low-visualization food down people's throat.

have a steak with some wine.
>>

 No.449980

>>

 No.449990

>>449974
>>449976
>>449980
poverty is a form of political terror that ruling classes inflict on people
rich people get rich by stealing surplus from workers
poor people get poor because they have their surplus stolen by rich people

you can invent all the frequency and meditation visualization bullshit you want, but you can't fool us we know you're just a fraud.
>>

 No.449997

File: 1630068615881-0.jpg (90.27 KB, 1280x720, BBC.Cant.Get.You.Out.of.My….jpg)

File: 1630068615881-1.jpg (84.18 KB, 1280x720, BBC.Cant.Get.You.Out.of.My….jpg)

>>

 No.450009

>>449970
inequality's fine, its just that capitalists dont earn their large share of the pie for what they put in. you think bezos should be individually worth $100 billion?
>>

 No.450010

>>449974

Agreed. All the people executed by the reds in the civil war and by the subsequent soviet government reaped what they sowed.

I couldn't be more positive about the future: I can visualize the mass extermination of the enemy, the wholesale slaughter of the liberal/libertarian ideologue , the petty bourgeois degenerate, and the upper bourgeois opportunist.

I can see them pleading the miserables waste of space lives of themselves and their putrescent families before being erased forever by the red industrialized extermination brigades.

~Be Positive~
~We Can Do It~
~За Сталина~
~За Коммунизма~
>>

 No.450011

Capitalist inequality necessitates an underclass. Nothing would be "worth anything" if everyone had access to a decent standard of living. The logic of private property and profit is about denial to others so that a surplus "value" can be extracted. That surplus REQUIRES an underclass. No capitslist ever became a billionaire without the exploitation of others. "Exploitation" in a Marxist sense is not about an unjust manipulation of someone, no bullshit moralism, it is how they (capitalists) stand upon the labor of thousands (millions?) to make money. What is Jeff Bezos without hordes of coders, warehouse workers, drivers etc? Just one man, he isn't worth the life and health of thousands others. You cannot have your petit-bourgeois/pmc cunts living large without slaves to pick up the trash and serve them food.
>>

 No.450012

>>449990
poverty is just a reality of scarcity actually - that's why in socialism people would have much less - the capitalists look at the breadlines but that's the cost of equality. in capitalism you can get iphones but its on the back of chinese slaves. or you can get mcdonalds but its on the backs of tortured animals. everything has a cost. this is why to me socialism works well as part of a theory of debt, that in socialism we all inherit eachother's debt and so make up for it in different ways. i remember some porky from a century ago asking someone if he should give what he owes to him if he were to give to each individually what he could individually in america and so then he gave him a penny - thats the sad reality. thats why socialism in the west right now is fucked since it focuses so much on "income equality" rather than pure production and resource-based alternatives to trade. only technology will bring any successful socialism.
>>

 No.450094

>>450010
Socialists claim the love workers, but only if they conform to their abstraction. They love the idea, but not the person, and wish to kill him. You are also sociopath, in real life, and you use these types of forums to sublimate your sociopathy into a toxic internet persona that gives you the validity you so desperately want in life, but can't get, because you are inept at everything you do.
>>450011
"Inequality" will always exist in society because no man is the same. The socialists attack "inequality" because of their emotional, pious attachment to social egalitarianism. Socialists are solipsistic - they ignore genetics are primary factor that will always lead to people being more "unequal" to others, and will recreate their domination by others in different forms.
>>

 No.450096

And then all the skysxrapes clapped and told me to watch Jordan Peterson.
>>

 No.450098

File: 1630157629391.jpg (61.07 KB, 1074x692, efficientsocialism.jpg)

>>450094
>Socialists claim the love workers, but only if they conform to their abstraction.
Socialist think that the working class is the key to bring about a better society that runs an economy in a more efficient way without the flaws of the capitalist system.
>"Inequality" will always exist in society because no man is the same.
There is a very small amount of natural inequality, but that has nothing to do with the inequality in capitalism.
Capitalist inequality is very un-natural, the capitalist system is enforcing it on society, with brutal methods that go against human nature, and waste enormous amounts of resources, it's very inefficient to have a class society. I'm guessing you are benefiting from the current system and therefore you are trying to convince people that it's the only way a society can be. But deep down you know how full of shit you are for pretending that the current way society is set up isn't a dead-end and if we don't change it, that it will all go to shit.
>>

 No.450105

>>449974
uygha what?
>>

 No.450107

>>450094
>You are also sociopath, in real life, and you use these types of forums to sublimate your sociopathy into a toxic internet persona that gives you the validity you so desperately want in life, but can't get, because you are inept at everything you do.

You sound emotional because you can’t handle that the world is a rough and tough place. Politics is war and blood and tears and only the strongest will conquer politically. The far left will take over because the nature of the movement of modern society leads to communism. In any case this is a fact of reality that you cannot wish away with your imagination; if the sun rises in the morning you can bet the sun will set in the evening, this is an objective fact. The world and society is based on war and political conquering and the far left always appears as the motive power of society thrusting us forward into the future, this is an objective fact.
>>

 No.450114

>>449974
>no no no, my friend. People get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
Go take a look at human history as well as the state of the current world, consider the unfathomably giant amount of injustice that has existed and persists.
>>

 No.450119

File: 1630185378327.jpg (57.72 KB, 679x367, 1630181562931.jpg)

>>

 No.450120

>>450098
>Socialist think that the working class is the key to bring about a better society
No, they do not. They don't care about worker as himself but the "socialist" in him. Only the abstraction matters since most workers do not agree with you (are racist, classiest, selfish), and are you willing to murder them for your ideal world. If you cared - you'd let them make their own choices in life instead of denying them their agency.
>Capitalist inequality is very un-natural
Capitalism inequality is not "unnatural" because the hierarchies that develop are seen in every society. For society to function, there simply needs to be an underclass of underachievers who produce for those simply seek more. The socialist is an idealistic who thinks it could any other way; as if "workers" are not animals driven by passions who seek power, and dominance, above camaraderie.
>>450107
>You sound emotional because you can’t handle that the world is a rough and tough place. Politics is war
The opposite is true - I'm indifferent to the world at large because I realize the idiots will always rule. I make the observation to inform people, for my own sake, to avoid you. Your socialist thuggery isn't something to be proud of, but to be mocked and ridiculed.
>>

 No.450121

>>450094

What kind of an idiot believes anyone is using an anonymous internet forum for validation? The medium completely evicerates any semblance of personal validation as there isn't even a face or bame to attribute statements to.

Make no mistake, replying to degenerate liberal moralizer trolls like you with violent rhetoric to see your drooling miserable liliputian responses is a reward all its own.
>>

 No.450125

>>450121
>What kind of an idiot believes anyone is using an anonymous internet forum for validation? The
It really doesn't because this is literally a chan, an echo-chamber, for lefties - the average person here is someone who agrees with you politically. There is a specific board culture here, and many anonymous boards have this type of herd mentality. You're one of those many profligates without a unique personality of your own. The communist man is the equivalent of a nail - its metaphysical outlook only prepares the communist for his future job to be hammered.
>Make no mistake, replying to degenerate liberal moralizer
Again, you're sublimating your sociopathy through the anonmity of the internet. No one here is afraid of you here because we all know you're a decadent individual looking for some sort of para-social escapism to avoid the problems in life that you don't have the courage to face.This board is just another way for you avoid your social awkwardness and lack of self esteem.
>>

 No.450126

File: 1630200619581.png (1.35 MB, 921x609, 1626230495638.png)

>>450121
More so, as I said before (>>450125) the revolutions of 1989 ended whatever cause you communist reprobates ever had. If anything, sites like this is where you huddle after being chased off from every other political community. You wretched Gremlin fucks - you will never stop the tide of liberty that always brings you deposits down.
>>

 No.450127

File: 1630202193761.jpg (210.99 KB, 1125x1109, 0813.jpg)

Why do you people keep responding to this drivel?
>>

 No.450193

File: 1630230374725.jpg (26.89 KB, 337x450, dc123af60f40fbeb5bc2c8e33d….jpg)

NTA
>>450120
>No, they do not. They don't care about worker as himself but the "socialist" in him. Only the abstraction matters since most workers do not agree with you (are racist, classiest, selfish), and are you willing to murder them for your ideal world. If you cared - you'd let them make their own choices in life instead of denying them their agency.
If you removed all of extraneous garbage here, you would realize that this is just politics. Politics, at least any consequential kind, is inherently coercive. There is no way around this. There is also no contradiction between caring for the workers and caring for the "socialist" within them, and there is no contradiction in murdering your politcal enemies, many of which may be workers themselves, in order to achieve this. Lets say for example that according to your political framework, a socialist society would largely be beneficial for the working class. Your politcal views are partially or entirely built on this. If this is to be the case, the only way you would actually "care" for said workers is to be willing to engage in whatever action was necessary to realize this, even if it then involved fighting against those workers that are opposed to you. You are then acting for the people, despite them. This isn't something merely socialists "commit", this is the reality of political systems, including the one you live in. Imagine tomorrow 50% of the country rises up and demands the system be changed to a communist one. But you as a capitalist perceive this as damaging, that in fact becoming communist is detrimental to the workers themselves. And so you act against said workers, denying them their "agency", their personal desires and whims and the will to see said things realized, in order to ensure said system is preserved, for their own good. This is reality, this is what you live in.
>Capitalism inequality is not "unnatural" because the hierarchies that develop are seen in every society.
I actually don't care if its "natural" or "unnatural", such a thing is nonsense given that everything we do is "natural" simply due to the fact that it is "natural" for humans to act in either capacity. Also, "hierarchies" are not the issue, are not the same as "inequality" (which is also not the explicit focus of Marxism), and what you stated is blatantly untrue in regards to those seen in "every society". They are in fact very different, and only by stretching what defines them to the point of being worthless can you argue differently.
>For society to function, there simply needs to be an underclass of underachievers who produce for those simply seek more. The socialist is an idealistic who thinks it could any other way; as if "workers" are not animals driven by passions who seek power, and dominance, above camaraderie.
As I said, stretched to the point of being worthless. This isn't an actual materialist analysis, this is a vague assertion.
>The socialist is an idealistic who thinks it could any other way; as if "workers" are not animals driven by passions who seek power, and dominance, above camaraderie.
On the contrary, it is idealistic that what you just stated has any contradiction to socialism at all. Ignoring how what you stated was just an essentialization without basis, socialism is just the working class coming together in their collective material interests to seize power and establish dominance over society, hungrily disposing of the bourgeoisie who dominate it, as those bourgeoisie as a class did to the class before them. The only difference is that this action, due to the development of capitalism itself and its socialization of production, leads to a negation of class society itself, as the actual mechanisms of the system which create economic class in the first place are superseded.
>The opposite is true - I'm indifferent to the world at large because I realize the idiots will always rule. I make the observation to inform people, for my own sake, to avoid you. Your socialist thuggery isn't something to be proud of, but to be mocked and ridiculed.
No, your a politcal idealist who doesn't at all understand how politics actually works, of what actually lies at its very roots. "Thuggery" is something to be "proud" of, because what you call "thuggery", is actual power. Its the actual reality of what lies at its roots, of the process that makes mere concepts reality. Violence and coercion is what politics in built on, and to curl up pathetically crying under the closest cargo truck, lamenting how this is the case and everyone else is moral reprobates as the day begins, the system continues, and you are crushed underneath, is pathetic.

Power is "good". Power is what changes systems. And so more power to the working class, despite the working class.
>>

 No.450233

File: 1630257048393-0.jpg (73.2 KB, 512x320, unnamed.jpg)

File: 1630257048393-1.jpeg (88.74 KB, 736x474, Uv1FBXz.jpeg)

File: 1630257048393-2.jpg (892.33 KB, 3840x2160, 5677373-Friedrich-Nietzsch….jpg)

>>450193
>Posting that manic Nechayev unironically
Just off the bat you've made yourself into fucking clown.
>Politics, at least any consequential kind, is inherently coercive. There is no way around this. There is no contradiction between caring for the workers and caring for the "socialist" within them, and there is no contradiction in murdering your political enemies, many of which may be workers themselves, in order to achieve this.
There is a contradiction - because you claim to care about the workers for their "betterment" out of your coercion, but yet you're willing to kill them, hurt them for your idealistic cause. Again, you only care about the workers who agree with your demands. You use moral sophistry to deny your self-obsessed goals. By posting Nechayev - you've already revealed what many thinkers have revealed about Marxism - that it is simply a form of sophistical nihilism. To a profligate, yourself, the ends simply justify the means. You have no principles, and you waste peoples' time by killing for the sake of killing because you don't have a coherent objective. At least be honest about your intentions.
>Lets say for example that according to your political framework, a socialist society would largely be beneficial for the working class

That's another problem with communists. You're pure idealists. What the fuck does "better" mean - how narcissistic can you be to believe you truly know what's better for someone? Clearly, we don't have to use your ridiculous example because we have enough evidence, from history, to show that the bodies make it clear that socialism would never be better for anyone but the vanguard itself. Anyone who has the most basic amount of critical thinking skills can see what you consider "better" is at the expense of anyone but yourself.
>I actually don't care if its "natural" or "unnatural"
I already know you're solipistic. Why waste characters for such an obvious statement - you fucking retard. To you, reality simply isn't independent of your emotions. That's why you're such a miserable person, in life, while others do just fine without turning envy, and revenge, into virtues like yourself. You solipsism is refuted the amount we resist your wretched heart with our own resolve.
>This isn't an actual materialist analysis,
Why pretend you care about "materialist analysis" when you've spewed normative non-sense and not positive claims for your political leanings? Imagine thinking that instinct theory is not "materialist." You people make sociological claims, but deny the biological basis of society. You really are just a solipsistic cretin.
>socialism is just the working class coming together in their collective material interests to seize power
Its really not. History would be a testament against that. Socialism always is, and always has been, slavery to the government dole at the expense of individual freedom. Socialists want disastrously plan out the fate of society, and rid it its of its natural differences, through the concentration of state violence - you think you can play the role of a god for whatever stupid reason. However, you utopians ignore the fact that history has shown in every case that such ideas are simply dreams - all the horrors that you lament from capitalism were all apparently in the socialist dumpster fires you profligates defend. But you don't care - for someone who claims to be "materialistic" you certainly become sophistic when your lies are exposed. The root of all human problems are the heart, and as long as it beats, suffering will be the norm. You don't change that, as history shows, with socialist self righteousness and indignation. Nor should we ever change it - life would not be worth living without the trials of hardship.

You have no reason to cry about the poor, you wretched proletarian profligate, because being a worker doesn't intrinsically give your life value - as you Marxists assume. Life in itself has no value, but the values we construct for it. Sadly for you, you've given your life too much value when nature says otherwise - that is the source of your envy.
>No, your a politcal idealist who doesn't at all understand how politics actually works,
Actually, no, I'm not an idealist. I'm just aware you're just slob, a brute, a thug who can't think of anything but power for your own sake. Jealousy is what drives you - not a moral urge for the love of your fellow man. You are s sociopath looking to rationalize your nihilism as a benefit for society.

You will do all kinds of sophistry to deny your intentions, but anyone with a critical mind can cut through your non-sense as knife does through butter. The problems with politics that people like you exist, your obsession with social engineering and your urge to oppress others for your own sake justifies the cycle of reprisals that make the tragedies of human life possible.
>Power is "good". Power is what changes systems. And so more power to the working class, despite the working class.
Might is a fine thing; especially when its used against socialist deposits who deny the liberty of others. Don't, however, troglodyte , claim you are "changing systems." Your intentions have always been to change rulers. You want to wear the boot. Sadly for you, you will never have such a thing

Just as Nechayev died a nobody - so will you.

>"No matter who tries to leave their mark,

The hills and dales are not impressed.
Collecting firewood and carrying water
Are prayers that reach the gods."
>>

 No.450240

File: 1630258933855.png (15.5 KB, 542x565, images (15).png)

>>450233
>There is no way around this. There is also no contradiction between caring for the workers and caring for the "socialist" within them, and there is no contradiction in murdering your politcal enemies, many of which may be workers themselves, in order to achieve this.
There is no contradiction, the workers are the revolutionary class because of historical materialism, however that doesn't mean all workers are in some form an essential part of the struggle. Communism will be achieved by communists and anti-communists will face the wall, even if that means killing large groups of people.

>B-but that's evil!!!

Ok reddit
>>

 No.450246

>>450233

Hey degenerate libertarian: The answer is yes.

I am inclined to socialism because I hate individual freedoms exactly as you mean: The freedom to consume degenerate garbage, to shorten lifespans, to exploit, degrade, etc.

I do not in any way share any love for this disgusting concept of mandevillian laissez faire or freedom for anyone to do any shit.

I want it all erased. I want you and everyone like you not just physically removed, but metaphysically removed (that the very conditions that make ecen the possibility of your existence abolished).

Yes totalitarianism: Total control by the working class. Get it through your degenerate mind: We are not individualists and we do not share your concerns or morality or even emotional inclinations. The working class is not an aggregate of individuals.

We are the despotic asiatic hordes.
>>

 No.450248

File: 1630263738628-0.jpg (27.94 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

File: 1630263738628-1.jpg (1.51 MB, 2790x1959, FreikorpsBerlinStahlhelmM1….jpg)

File: 1630263738628-2.jpg (18.22 KB, 447x247, file.jpg)

>>450240
>historical materialism
Which is solipsism. You could easily explain history away with the simplicity of the will to power - the mental fortitude our passions and instincts as an odyssey. Nor does one have to live according to the history of others.

You are not arguing over positive claims, but the method of constructing things. I say - men shall make their own methods, and I dare you to try make something else of it. You don't determine our methods or our beliefs ; we do.

Your "history" is just the dogma of your pious moralization - the inevitable triumph of the dispossessed. The belief that nobodies, such as yourself, become somebody at the expense of "ownership" in spirit and not the self actualization of taking responsibility for your own life. Your sophistry, your philosophy is nothing more than a feeble alibi to be an even more rotten & decadent human being.
>>450246
>I hate individual freedoms exactly as you mean: The freedom to consume degenerate garbage,
"Degeneracy" is nothing more than your pathetic cry of resentment towards your inability to persuade people to uphold your childish beliefs on what they ought to do with their lives. And why? Because people see through the hypocrisy of some decadent socialist cretin, like yourself, to dear say you are an authority on the morality of others. What gives you such right? Your virtues? What virtues - you have none. Your actions? Utterly contemptible and pathetic. Your life? Nobody would even waste the ink to write about it. See, morals are only worth the person espousing them, and sadly to say, there's never be a socialist who's ever had a morality worth emulating - a morality of being vengeful, being mediocre and lusting for blood. See to it that you never give your opinion on such matters because they are just as worthless, and as much of a waste of time as your own life.

Nor can you do anything to stop your aversion to stop human "degeneracy" , your unnatural aversion to a necessity of life that gives it the emotions, the meanings we cherish because we do not fear you and never will. Libertarians, those who love the individual & liberty, will always be gadflies to your plans because we do not live in the fear of disdaining your authority with the criticism of our tongue, and the force of our arms.

Militia est vita hominis super terram - you profligate
>>

 No.450252

I would cry at all those poor people in the bottom living in shack homes despite the people being the workers who use the means of production to produce the ivory towers in the background. The people who live there probably didn't earn their wealth thru their labor but just stole the wages of others. Those skyscrapers aren't even necessary really. You could make high quality medium height buildings to house everyone rather than waste it on tall vanity projects that use excess resources. Skyscrapers are nothing but vanity and don't actually make the city a better place to live.
>>

 No.450253

>Those skyscrapers aren't even necessary really.
You aren't necessary for life to continue to Earth either, so, why don't we just get rid of you?
> Skyscrapers are nothing but vanity and don't actually make the city a better place to live.
The same could be said for every socialist alive. You don't make the world a better place to live, but you do obsess over the vanity of life.
>>

 No.450254

>>450248
>You could explain history with the idea of will of power
Yeah but I am not a nietzschean incel so I don't

>alibi

Hey, aren't you the incel that was sperging on the Sex Worker thread?
>>

 No.450263

File: 1630265189765.png (1.51 MB, 1534x1600, 1629322377150.png)

>>

 No.450265

File: 1630265294242.jpg (31.71 KB, 550x413, c4e.jpg)

>>450254
You're bordgist leftcom retard, no different than the profligates who infest this shit hole. Go back to twitter, faggot.
>Hey, aren't you the incel
This is my first time posting here, you retard. Even your dogshit mods can confirm that claim.
>>450263
Kill yourself commie
>>

 No.450267

File: 1630265366366.jpg (524.21 KB, 1242x1024, The future of libertarians.jpg)

>>

 No.450276

File: 1630265758968.jpg (5.67 KB, 465x352, 2m94eh.jpg)

>>

 No.450281

>>450276
>Lolbert claims to love freedom and individual liberty
<Chimps out and posts Pinochet Helicopters
You’re a petty-booj fascist in denial who thinks the end-all be-all of freedom is to put a fence around shit and say “this is mine.”
>>

 No.450284

File: 1630266571220.jpg (89.36 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg)

>>450281
>You love liberty if you let go around taking yours!
Killing communists preserves my freedom of others from their inference in it. Die in a fire, uyghur
>>

 No.450285

>>450284
You've never killed anyone, but going around saying you did is a really dumb idea. Is this the extent of libertarian social values?
>>

 No.450287

File: 1630266826532.jpg (162.95 KB, 900x636, 10-paris-commune-1871-gran….jpg)

>>450281
You should be shot and everyone like you should be shot. Communists no longer should live on this Earth. You are not a human being, but animal, a beast to be slaughtered. Just as Nietzsche praised the executions of the Paris Communards on the streets by French troops, I will praise the consequences of your life ending actions.
>>450285
When the time comes, we will kill you and everything about you. Sic Semper Tyrannis
>>

 No.450289

AW shoot, this guy makes a lot if sense. I guess its time to forget the months worth if time I've spent reading Marxist theory
>>

 No.450290

File: 1630267106728.jpg (76.86 KB, 800x600, socialism-is-the-phantasti….jpg)

>end-all be-all of freedom is to put a fence around shit and say “this is mine.”
No, its really when I put a noose around your neck, and hang you so I can keep what is mine.
>>

 No.450291

>>450284
>>450287
Quit the pearl clutching, you guys are a minority. Not only that, you can’t even do a mass politics properly or organize people to your movement. When you do it’s mostly acts of violent spectacle that somehow alienate people harder than the worst antifa chimpout. If you do gain any ground, it’s by the grace of bourgeois propping you up as their useful idiots. When they want a return on investment or think you aren’t doing your job well, however, that’s when they pull the plug.
>>

 No.450292

Anything else?
>>

 No.450293

File: 1630267415497.jpg (114.86 KB, 750x500, d437e46311fc4002a3f3102af1….jpg)

>>

 No.450294

>>450293
>implying they like pinoshit
>>

 No.450296

>>450293
Are these the guys who made the town that got fucked by bears?

Having yourself a little rally, bringing guns like a bunch of Somali Warlords and waving flags around isn’t political praxis. It’s the Macy’s thanksgiving parade.
>>

 No.450297

>>450294
Again, lol
https://twitter.com/FreeStateNH/status/1403087075461763072
>>450296
The guns for socialist distancing - because you fucking cowards are too pusy to show up
>>

 No.450298

>>450290
Literally picrel.
>>

 No.450299

>>450297
What is this sentence? Are you ESL goblino?
>>

 No.450300

>>450297
Fucking fantastic, they denounced Pinochet in the thread you linked
Read a book uygha
>>

 No.450301

>>450299
>"when the Free Staters have fully taken over, there are going to be A LOT of helicopter rides
it's a natural outcome of deregulating flight
cheaper prices = more rides"
Imagine being so fucking retarded you can't catch the sarcasm.
>>

 No.450302

>>What gives you such right?

This is a red herring. You are assuming we base our views on the concept of "rights" , let alone the ones you espouse.

I assure you, we do not. We do not assume the need to appeal to a concept of rights to do as we see fit. The ethical and metaethical gulf is unbrigeable.



And yes we are evil you ascribe to us and there are hundreds of millions of evil peoples just like us.

It doesn't even take much of search to figure this out. Just look at the comments on nearly any russian video related to Stalin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dvo9f5flRc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ge_KSnw84
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/04/16/record-70-per-cent-russians-approve-stalin/

So why are you wasting your time trolling here? You will never convince our sociopathic, despotic, mongolian, [insertwhateverotheradjectiveyoudontlike], etc. minds of anything other than the need for totalitarian control.

If anything it shows your own impotence at dealing the growing anti-liberal/anti-libertarian sentiments, whether socialist leaning or nationalist leaning. All you can is spout fumbling liliputian libertarian platitudes to people on an anonymous image board who you yourself consider irrelevant.



P.S.: Even Pinochet abandonned the free market masturbations after the enormous economic crash of 82. His government expanded state control and kept cooper nationalized.
>>

 No.450304

>>450301
Holy cope.
>>

 No.450306

File: 1630268613371.jpg (10.65 KB, 260x194, index.jpg)

>>450302
>This is a red herring. You are assuming we base our views on the concept of "rights" , let alone the ones you espouse.
Its not - you want the equality of right for simply being a worker for simple existing. You're bum who thinks you have a right to exist when you don't. You earn it like everyone else. Too bad for you don't have what it takes to earn it.
>And yes we are evil you ascribe to us
Yeah, and that's why you're gonna be shot in the back the head, and throw out of a helicopter. Case in point.
>Even Pinochet
Pinochet said "Chile would never be a land of proletarians, but a land of propertarians." He was not wrong - he reversed the majority of Allende's reforms and had all the socialists killed. He wasn't perfect, but perfection should never be the enemy of progress.
>>

 No.450307

>>450306
>more impotent seething from a keyboard warrior gusano
>>

 No.450308

>>450302
Stalin was based because he killed so many people like you fyi
>any russian
Who gives a fuck about a shit hole like Russia? They're seething they lost their vassal states. Those mongolian profligates just bandits and thugs - their opinion and lives are worthless just like yours
>>

 No.450310

File: 1630268845662.jpg (112.73 KB, 1317x1221, 1629688424764-0.jpg)

>you want the equality of right for simply being a worker for simple existing.
>>

 No.450311

>>450308
And what shithole country are you from?
>>

 No.450312

File: 1630269052179.jpg (117.81 KB, 960x591, 1629816693507-3.jpg)

>>

 No.450313

>>450306

You are mistaken. I don't believe you or I have the right to exist.

I don't believe in any inherent rights. Tead the fucking text. Or is your degenerate mind too weak to process the statements?

>Pinochet vs. Allende


I fully agree Allende was a cuck.

We have fully digested the songunpill here. Arm everyone, fortify the whole country and threated the enemy with the cleansing atomic fire.

>Get shot in the head


Yes finally! I am so pleased you dropped the whiny "muhsociopaths" bullshit of before.

Bring it.

Let's rip each other apart like the rabid dogs we truly are!
>>

 No.450314

File: 1630269160894-0.png (639.7 KB, 1032x900, 2ng7y8jwei061.png)

File: 1630269160894-1.jpg (627.24 KB, 1283x1264, E4kZj-TXIAEfqh3.jpg)

File: 1630269160894-2.png (121.67 KB, 863x658, EcEx5ibX0AErXVr.png)

>>450310
>>450311
>>450312
>>450313
You're all really just a bunch of resentful Russian mongoloids, huh? Mad the wittle ol' US of A took away your decedent empire? Too bad. Don't you have work tomorrow? Get to it.(USER WAS BANNED FOR CRITICIZING TURANIC JUCHE)
>>

 No.450315

>>450314
ew, twitter
>>

 No.450318

>>450308

And we despotic mongolians see you in the same way: Your own lives and those of your friends and family are sickness and a taint.
>>

 No.450320

>>450314
Seriously, where you from, buddy?
>>

 No.450321

>>450314

Yes. We are a horde
>>

 No.450330

>>450321
I AM THAT
>>

 No.450331

>>450305
Should we sticky it?
>>

 No.450333

>>450330



ЭТО Я
>>

 No.450334

An entire thread dedicated to arguing with the one rightoid autistic enough to post on this site. I can't imagine why this board is so dead.
>>

 No.450350

Good on the jannies for actually deloying the containment thread.
>>

 No.450412

File: 1630289833119-0.jpg (40.53 KB, 553x386, 7a77d240c0ade544a62cabf03a….jpg)

File: 1630289833119-1.png (835.98 KB, 1110x682, 5c22a6d424c3f31b815c254060….png)

File: 1630289833119-2.jpg (108.47 KB, 640x916, 659bdef374e915c893c71d263a….jpg)

>>450233
>Just off the bat you've made yourself into fucking clown.
I posted Nechayev because he's a funny meme, with a kernel of truth to him. If posting Nechayev makes me a clown, posting H. L. Mencken makes you the whole circus.
>There is a contradiction - because you claim to care about the workers for their "betterment" out of your coercion, but yet you're willing to kill them, hurt them for your idealistic cause. Again, you only care about the workers who agree with your demands.
That is in fact how politics work, yes. Simply because you advocate something which you see as bettering a class, does not mean all of that class will agree with you, and will not then oppose you and fight against those of the class that do advocate for such. Again, there is no contradiction here. This is like saying that fighting against slaves sent to put down a slave revolt, or who have cozied up to their masters, is the same as being against the slaves as a whole. Its garbage.
>You use moral sophistry to deny your self-obsessed goals.
None of it was moral sophistry, it was just an analysis of politics itself. Your the ones waxing on about the moral indignity of it.
>By posting Nechayev - you've already revealed what many thinkers have revealed about Marxism - that it is simply a form of sophistical nihilism. To a profligate, yourself, the ends simply justify the means. You have no principles, and you waste peoples' time by killing for the sake of killing because you don't have a coherent objective. At least be honest about your intentions.
Again, posted Nechayev because of him being meme, but yes, the ends justify the means. This is not the same as having no principles though, in fact its being entirely consistent with your principles by acknowledging that if you are to say that one principle supersedes all others, that you have the utmost and absolute conviction in something, that then there exists nothing in the world that should bar you in the pursuit of such. It is the absolute epitome of principle, its highest epoch, not its rejection. My argument is not killing for the sake of killing with no objective, but killing with an singular absolute one.
>That's another problem with communists. You're pure idealists. What the fuck does "better" mean - how narcissistic can you be to believe you truly know what's better for someone?
Now this is actual sophistry. Everyone has a framework upon which they conceptualize what is better, and what defines such. You yourself, for all your dishonesty, find capitalism as a system to be "better". Are you a narcissist for doing so, by assuming "market freedom" is truly the best thing for people and society? I don't think you've actually thought this through.
>Clearly, we don't have to use your ridiculous example because we have enough evidence, from history, to show that the bodies make it clear that socialism would never be better for anyone but the vanguard itself.
On the contrary, history shows the opposite; that socialism has been widely beneficial to the proletariat, even despite the suffering needed to fight to preserve it.
>Anyone who has the most basic amount of critical thinking skills can see what you consider "better" is at the expense of anyone but yourself.
No, I am myself at the expense of what ever is necessary to achieve the goal of socialism.
>I already know you're solipistic. Why waste characters for such an obvious statement - you fucking retard. To you, reality simply isn't independent of your emotions. That's why you're such a miserable person, in life, while others do just fine without turning envy, and revenge, into virtues like yourself. You solipsism is refuted the amount we resist your wretched heart with our own resolve.
Reality is independent from my emotions, at what point did I state something which implied differently? Nothing about rejecting the false dichotomy of "natural" and "unnatural" is solipsistic. I'm actually fine in my life, albeit jaded and cynical. My action are not informed by envy or revenge, but by what is consequential. Capitalism is system that by its own mechanisms careens towards inevitable ruin, of which we will all be taken with it. Therefore, if the ultimatum is ruin or the continued existence of society in a way no longer precariously resolving towards collapse, then I choose the latter.
>Why pretend you care about "materialist analysis" when you've spewed normative non-sense and not positive claims for your political leanings?
Where have I stated this?
>Imagine thinking that instinct theory is not "materialist." You people make sociological claims, but deny the biological basis of society. You really are just a solipsistic cretin.
What you argue to be "instinct theory" is not materialist, because you could very well argue anything in regards to it based on your assumptions of what exactly the inclination of people is during a time. There is no argument to it, because I could very well frame any "instinct" as being a sufficient enough basis for any system.
>Its really not. History would be a testament against that. Socialism always is, and always has been, slavery to the government dole at the expense of individual freedom.
Proof? Define "individual freedom"? The freedom to lack even the capacity to engage in said "freedoms"? That doesn't sound like any consequential "freedom" to me.
>Socialists want disastrously plan out the fate of society, and rid it its of its natural differences, through the concentration of state violence - you think you can play the role of a god for whatever stupid reason.
The state is already a monopoly on violence, so I don't understand you issue here with this. Saying "the concentration of state violence" is an oxymoron. And what exactly do you mean by "natural differences"? I have no interest in making people the same, or having people receive exactly the same in regards to labour.
>However, you utopians ignore the fact that history has shown in every case that such ideas are simply dreams - all the horrors that you lament from capitalism were all apparently in the socialist dumpster fires you profligates defend.
Funny that this should be said, because it reminds me of a quote from elsewhere, that "Your fears about socialism, have been realized under capitalism". None of the horrors I lament in capitalism were present in socialism, particularly not in the context of what they emerged from.
>But you don't care - for someone who claims to be "materialistic" you certainly become sophistic when your lies are exposed.
Again, what was sophistic? Simply repeating this over and over again without basis is not an argument, and all it does is make you sound like a pseud.
>The root of all human problems are the heart, and as long as it beats, suffering will be the norm. You don't change that, as history shows, with socialist self righteousness and indignation. Nor should we ever change it - life would not be worth living without the trials of hardship.
Now this is actual sophistry, in its actual colloquial definition. First you make the unfounded assumption that all the problems of human society are merely innate, and thus for some reason also unsolvable. You also for some reason earlier then argued for what was better for it, which is itself nonsense if you see it as inherently a creature only capable of creating suffering. But then you go further, and make out socialism to be the ending of all human suffering, and that because you then make the normative claim that life would not be worth it without suffering, that then socialism is illegitimate and improper. Every step of this is riddled with issues. Why the assumption that socialism is the ending of human suffering? Why make statements against normative claims, but then make a normative claim on human suffering? You built up a strawman, and then knocked it down with platitudes.
>You have no reason to cry about the poor, you wretched proletarian profligate, because being a worker doesn't intrinsically give your life value - as you Marxists assume. Life in itself has no value, but the values we construct for it. Sadly for you, you've given your life too much value when nature says otherwise - that is the source of your envy.
I never stated that being a worker is what gives life value. What a way to out yourself as a pseud when arguing against Marxism, which posits the end of economic class itself, and the self-abolition of the role of proletariat by the proletariat. Of course life has no value besides what we construct for it, but these value do not emerge from a vacuum. "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past", as Marx would state. Again, nothing I argue is based on "envy", and such words you may notice change when the class in question is brought up, which is what determines in our society the difference between "envy" and "ambition". Become a capitalist and dispose another capitalist? Ambition. Dispose of a capitalist and raise up the worker? Envy. Our language in such regards is simply informed by the system and the ruling class. As someone fascinated by Nietzsche, even you should know this.
>Actually, no, I'm not an idealist. I'm just aware you're just slob, a brute, a thug who can't think of anything but power for your own sake. Jealousy is what drives you - not a moral urge for the love of your fellow man. You are s sociopath looking to rationalize your nihilism as a benefit for society.
You didn't make a singular argument here, just a list of unfounded assumption on the character of an anonymous user. When I stated for you to be an idealist in regards to politics, I stated that because that is what you actually are in your conception of it. What drives me isn't emotional lamenting of personal circumstance, or some moral urge, but necessity. That complete and utter drive to bring this process to completion. You can argue about "moral urges" and "a love for man", but these are never going to be universal. Whatever I state to be a love for man, you could very just accuse as actually simply being jealousy. And whatever you could call a love for man, I could very well accuse as being nothing more then obfuscation for your need to preserve the system, no matter the cost, for petty self-indulgence and narcissism.
>Might is a fine thing; especially when its used against socialist deposits who deny the liberty of others.
No doubt you would think this, and I think the opposite, because our interests are opposed. Ironically though, you just conceded your whole argument to me. You acknowledged that this is what politics is, that you have no issue with power, authority, and a monopoly on violence when used to defend and pursue your interests. The "thuggery" you accuse us of is "thuggery" you yourself are ok with, that you in fact embrace, but delude yourself into being better then. You have no claim to your earlier posturing.
>Don't, however, troglodyte , claim you are "changing systems." Your intentions have always been to change rulers. You want to wear the boot. Sadly for you, you will never have such a thing
Everything I do is in the interest of changing the system. Though you wont believe me, I truly don't care rulers or "wearing the boot". I only care about the end, whether I die in the process or not, because that is my singular and absolute conviction. Power is absolutely worthless if it does not fulfill a mean, in such a state it just rots as people rot.
>Just as Nechayev died a nobody - so will you.
Nechayev is again a meme, but while Nechayev died, he still succeeded. His larger plan of killing the Tsar, went off entirely with barely a hitch. And all it took was his own life, which is a rather small price to pay in the pursuit of such a goal. Those who were to carry it out offered to free him, to let him out of prison so that he may yet live, but he turned them down so that the plan to bomb the Tsar would not come under suspicion. Regardless of what you or I may feel about the man personally, regardless of his faults, he had conviction. That absolute conviction, to have your goal above your life. It doesn't matter if you die a nobody, as long as you die content in having fulfilled your convictions to best of you abilities.
>"No matter who tries to leave their mark, The hills and dales are not impressed. Collecting firewood and carrying water Are prayers that reach the gods."
Nice little quote, but one made by a person who lived in country ironically entirely marked and deeply impressed upon by those who acted and reshaped it. Here's another for you:
>"Man's dearest possession is life. It is given to him but once, and he must live it so as to feel no torturing regrets for wasted years, never know the burning shame of a mean and petty past; so live that, dying, he might say: all my life, all my strength were given to the finest cause in all the world"
>>

 No.450425

File: 1630313280205.png (79.19 KB, 300x169, ClipboardImage.png)

The guy is absolute scum. The worst kind of human being. The fact that so many look up to him, and yet know very little about him, is literally disgusting (yes, it literally churns my stomach). If you're going to invent a time machine in order to go back in time and kill Hitler, don't . Just go back a little further to the source of collectivist trash.

In a letter written on his fiftieth birthday to Engels, Marx recalled his mother’s words: "if only Karl made capital instead of just writing about it." Here are some more fun facts about your stinking, senile old leader.

1. Prone to drunkenness and duels as a kid. He was sent to prison for being drunk and fought with fellow students. Clearly he wasn't bullied hard enough as a child. Because of his misbehaviour, the government denied him an academic career and he had to settle for working as a journalist.
2. Literally a man without a country, kicked out and exiled out of every nation-state like a misbehaving kid being kicked out of every school he enrols in. He was run out of Prussia, expelled from France, rejected from Belgium, forced to leave Prussia once again, denied citizenship in Britain, refused re-naturalization in Prussia, rejected from Texas.
3. Marx and his family lived in abject squalor and poverty, being kicked out of his apartment for failing to pay rent, used a fake name for decades to hide from creditors, could not even leave his house because his wife had to pawn his pants to buy food. Frequently recieved free gibs from Engels.
4. Another communist once plotted to kill him for being stuck in an armchair and insufficiently radical. Marx was challenged to a duel by this communist, got scared and ran away. The communist later begame a general in the Union Army during the American Civil War.
5. He died broke and just 11 people attended his funeral. He always complained about his life, and his funds and influence was waning upon his death.

Don't forget that he fathered a child with his maid, and guilted Engels into taking the blame. Oh, he also bought guns for a "revolution" that never happened instead of food and medicine for his sick child (who later died). Oh, and he frequently planned his finances around the death (and subsequent inheritance) of his wealthy relatives. Oh, and that he intentionally (apparently) put economic "traps" into Kapital vol 1, that he left for his detractors so that he could "destroy" them in vol 3. Except he died before vol 3 came out. Even if he had written what he planned, his whole foundation was "destroyed" (ironically) by Marginal Utility.
>>

 No.450428

He was also very lazy which added to his problems. His views had no bearing on real life but was idealistic and unattainable. The combination of laziness and unattainable actions led to his demise and the birth of the democrat party. It will end just as sadly for the democrats.

I have, on more than several occasions, heard young, broke college students prattle on and on about how they thought Karl Marx was brilliant. Asking those in the conversation, have you ever read Marx? I have more than once been told I was bourgeoisie or listened as parents of some of these "Marxists" were called bourgeoisie. "Bourge" (boozee?) is a derogatory term for anyone who strives for anything better than the bare minimum to get by. Interestingly, fast forward a few years when these same "Marxist" are offered a salaried job, and have a car, house and credit card payment, mention Marx and they shrug it off with the reply, "that was back in college".

Marx's typical reply to an opponent during an argument was to raise his fist and shout, "I will annihilate you !!" His socialist/communist admirers and his statist allies, the fascists, have the same intention. America has been in decline, practicing Marxist ideology, for 155 years. The oppression was brought about by Lincoln's invasion of the South in 1861. Lincoln raised his fist at the South 155 years ago. Big government been running amuck and gaining more power ever since. Lincoln's idea of government - if they won't stay and pay my tariffs peacefully - shoot' em. Lincoln & Marx were two peas in a pod.

You'd have to go at least as far back as Plato, whose treatise "Republic" is a blueprint for communism. The emotion of envy has always been present in human history, but formal attempts at pandering to it and defending it philosophically, thus politically (politics being a branch of philosophy) really began in the West with Plato.
>>

 No.450429

>>450425
have sex
>>

 No.450431

Where is the actual argument? This is just random assertions about his personal life, some of which aren't even true.
>>

 No.450434

>Prone to drunkenness and duels as a kid. He was sent to prison for being drunk and fought with fellow students.
based
>Literally a man without a country, kicked out and exiled out of every nation-state like a misbehaving kid being kicked out of every school he enrols in. He was run out of Prussia, expelled from France, rejected from Belgium, forced to leave Prussia once again, denied citizenship in Britain, refused re-naturalization in Prussia, rejected from Texas.
giga based
>Don't forget that he fathered a child with his maid
As if you’re above temptation you little worm.

rest of this shit is just made up
>>

 No.450435

>>450425
Literally 0 argument.
Literally just whining like a little bitch.
>>

 No.450436

Marx birthed the democrat party
>>

 No.450437

>>450434
The latter one has no evidence behind it.
>>

 No.450445

File: 1630343601080.jpeg (17.66 KB, 640x480, images - 2021-08-31T03124….jpeg)

>Marx's typical reply to an opponent during an argument was to raise his fist and shout, "I will annihilate you !!"
Thanks for the chuckle anon.
>>

 No.450450

>>450425
>>450428

Two whole posts of ad-hominem. Nobody here is even mad. If this wasn't a copy-pastaby jove you wasted so much of your time.

Good on the jannies for using the containment thread again.
>>

 No.451039

Stickied and saged?
>>

 No.451051

>>451039
It prevents it from bumping over the other stickies
>>

 No.451063

>>451051

Ah that makes sense!
>>

 No.451095

File: 1631074964570-0.jpg (800.36 KB, 1100x734, pyongyang.jpg)

File: 1631074964570-1.jpg (50.77 KB, 780x438, pyongyang hotel.jpg)

>>449970
>let pretty captialist city meme
>>

 No.451107

>>451104
All the Chicago and Austrian economists are Jews though
>>

 No.451109

File: 1631124085128-0.jpg (355.3 KB, 825x354, D4580BD6-332A-4E3F-9701-43….jpg)

File: 1631124085128-1.jpeg (42.3 KB, 760x428, lon_wallart_170522.jpeg)

File: 1631124085128-2.jpg (462.98 KB, 500x764, A3053CC9-1E3D-4616-BFE3-0B….jpg)

>>451104
hmm
>>

 No.451110

>>451104
>>451109
also want to point out isn't it strange that there are so many jews influencing a "side" that apparently hates them? it's almost like that doesn't matter and as long as you have quelled your class enemies its fine
>>

 No.451129

>>451107
Then why are you calling them "economists"?
>>451110
Donald Trump and The Bell Curve dont represent the reactionary political right. The Bell Curve used lies in their abstract in order to protect peoples political feelings. Nice try though Shekel Berg
>>

 No.451137

File: 1631155589989.png (80.64 KB, 347x288, Trollface_non-free.png)

>>451129
>t-trump doesn't count
because you uyghurs didn't spam about him during the election
>used lies in their abstract in order to protect peoples political feelings
idk who the fuck you think i am but i used to browse /pol/ and /sci/ at different times as my main boards. ive seen murray spam for years. im not sure how you can seriously divorce a text as seminal as the bell curve from race realism, fucking clown

face it. your kind are all crypto-zionists using anti-semitism as an aesthetic. i've never seen an anti-semite who wouldn't do the same thing the technocratic elite do if they were given power. you are jealous that jews have an ethnostate, have higher autism scores, have more of a racial identity, and own more wealth than other white people. you are just failed jews, and even recapitulate the ideology of jewish authoritarians. seriously, how can you stupid fucks buy a doctrine where jews tell you they have a full standard deviation above the rest of the population, and use it to defend their economic position. you just eat it up HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

aryan women are nothing in the face of ashkenazi cock
>>

 No.451138

>>451137
>Noooooo my strawman where you're supposed to defend the bell curve didnt work!!!
>>

 No.451142

File: 1631158754558.jpeg (29.38 KB, 460x241, an4oPnq_460s.jpeg)

>>451138
>strawman!!
you don't understand the words you use, do you? where's the argument im supposed to be misrepresenting when i quoted what you said? not to mention you think anyone here cares about identity politics bullshit about white or purple people kek. stop being a crypto-zionist golem uyghur anytime
>>

 No.451144

File: 1631160657814.png (134.49 KB, 955x609, 1630083641852.png)

>>451142
uyghur the entire leftist identity is centered on sucking off rich jewish cock and hating on whitey. And youre the retard that brought up the bell curve as your right wing strawman
>>

 No.451146

>>451144
>uyghur the entire leftist identity is centered on sucking off rich jewish cock and hating on whitey.
Proof?
>>

 No.451147

>>451104
>Can any leftist explain why they love and follow Jews?
We don't? Unless you count accepting certain economists and theorists as correct that happen to be Jews as "following Jews", then I don't understand this argument. Nobody is collectively loving and following Jews as some kind of ethnic group to be fetishized
>I seriously dont get the point in hating white people
Who's doing this?
>but seeing Jews as good normal human beings.
We don't treat them as a singular group to begin with. There are based Jews like Norman Finkelstein. There Zionist shills like Shapiro that deserve to be shot. These are not the same.
>Is this a cognitive defect all leftists have?
We're not the ones posting and jacking off to horse porn.
>>

 No.451149

>>451129
>dont represent the reactionary political right
So you mean instead a need to chase obscenities that the current capitalist system can no longer fulfill for them which pushes them to try and violate the confines of modern liberal social norms while still attempting to preserve the current capitalist system, so as to both preserve their consumption within it and have a "play-act" of the past that is divorced from its prior required demands?
>>

 No.451152

File: 1631167463767.jpg (15 KB, 230x219, 1620071629752.jpg)

>>451146
>>451147
>>451149
The holohoax never happened and Jews are the Antichrist. The Jewish problem must be solved and this is what separates us. You choose to make us your enemies with your "idpol/individualist" autism. But keep thinking your jewed economic ideology is more important
>>

 No.451155

>>451152
Have sex incel
>>

 No.451157

>>451152
you just think jews are "the problem" because their ancestors gamed capital better than yours did. maybe if you rope you might reincarnate yourself as one
>>

 No.451185

File: 1631197327153.png (17.15 KB, 427x400, 1618612898243.png)

>>451157
>capitalism bad
>except when Jews do it its okay. It just means they are smarter and more talented
Do you see why no one takes you seriously now?
>>

 No.451186

>>451185
>capitalism good
>except when the Jews do it better than me
You really are fucking stupid, aren't you kid?
>>

 No.451187

>>451152
Topkek
>>

 No.451191

File: 1631206101076.gif (614.61 KB, 300x400, 1609037916643.gif)

>>451186
>you think capitalism good
>me think capitalism bad
>>

 No.451198

>>451191
So you dislike capitalism and believe only the Jews engage in capitalism, despite the fact that Christians, Muslims, Asians, and literally everyone else also engages in capitalism?

Were you dropped as a baby?
>>

 No.451203

>>451185
crypto-zionist reveals neo-liberal brainwashing in earnestly confusing gaming the system with genuine meritocracy (a feature capitalism doesn't have). don't you have a self-help book to read?
>>

 No.451205

>>451198
>>451203
Jews invented capitalism you idiotic fucks. You will never get the proletariate you retards want, because you believe in all races "sharing the blame equally" and cannot single out the Jews who are soley responsible for it. Black, White, and Asain capitalists would not exist if it werent for them
>>

 No.451207

>>451205
even if you aren't spouting bullshit, it's still irrelevant. what ethnic group "invented it" has nothing to do with taking down an exploitative system. it's like when democrats try to frame slavery and imperialism around "whiteness" as opposed to economic incentives. you are just substituting the appropriate mode of analysis for one that is useless just because it appeals more to your innate resentiment

>because you believe in all races "sharing the blame equally"

we don't care about the racial blame game, dumb idpol'd fuck! ALL porks either relinquish their property or get sent to the gulags. why does it matter if the capitalist satanist is irish instead of jewish? their racial lineage somehow makes what they are doing ok?

>Black, White, and Asain capitalists would not exist if it werent for them

again, even if this was true, so? are you saying capitalism would end if we just did another holocaust lol? "yup, it's obviously the jews that are making the bourgeoisie act in their own interests"? lol
>>

 No.451210

>>451205
It doesn't matter if they did, right now all races engage in it and just because you get to eliminate all Jews doesn't mean they will stop, stupid Lassallean
>>

 No.451219

>>451205
>Jews invented capitalism you idiotic fucks.
No sir, it was the Dutch.
https://unherd.com/2020/07/how-the-dutch-invented-everything/
>>

 No.451269

>>451207
>exploitative system
I like how you like to reduce things down to abstract concepts, as if no actors or collective group interest is taking place. If this is the premise you have then you wont get anywhere. You will not "defeat the system" by reducing it to an abstract idea
>>

 No.451271

>>451269
Radlib-tier argument
>>

 No.451305

>>451269
What the fuck does this mean? Lol. Everything is abstract you ninny.
>>

 No.451366

File: 1631478160463.jpg (233.06 KB, 720x1520, Screenshot_2021-09-12-15-2….jpg)

Nice
>>

 No.451367

>>451366
Kek. It keeps the thread from bumping above the other stickies.
>>

 No.451951

File: 1632165535880.jpeg (6.74 KB, 217x232, descarga (15).jpeg)

>>451941
>>

 No.451972

>>451968
>The meme argues in an oversimplified way that communism doesn't work.
Where's the actual argument though? It just makes a bunch of unfounded assertions with arrows.
>It shouldn't be too hard to debunk.
The fact that none of what is stated happened might be one.
>>

 No.451991

>>451941
Well communism in the ussr increased calorie intake dramatically for starters
>>

 No.452016

>>451997
>American and Soviet citizens eat about the same amount of food each day but the Soviet diet may be more nutritious.
source
https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp84b00274r000300150009-5
>>

 No.452078

>>451982
>2. who is left can't grow enough food
When has it ever been the case that people starved primarily because the bourgeoisie were removed?
>>

 No.452079

>>451997
>Was this before or after the holomodor?
How is this relevant at all? And yes, calorie intake did increase overall before the holodomor, that's entirely indisputable comparative to how the USSR was early on.
>And what's your basis for thinking that communism is the cause and not just riding a wave of general technological advancement that swept all the developed world at the same time?
You could literally argue this for every country then, you could even argue this in regards to capitalism not decreasing hunger and that communism isn't what stifles agricultural output as all and instead make it completely a question of technology available.
>And finally calories are not a measure of anything because you can stuff people with calories from high carb and fat meals but they will still be weak and nutritionally deficient.
This is literally the US, and this was entirely the policy of most western countries in constructing their initial agricultural base. High carb foods were generally always the basis for most economies (wheat, rice, potatos, etc.).
>>

 No.452080

>>452021
>Generally held nutritional standards suggest that individuals need fewer calories, less meat, less sugar and more grain to stay fit.
In the US you idiot, because in the US people were actually overconsuming these things to an extreme degree. There is eating some meat, and there is gorging yourself on it.
>>

 No.452235

>>452176
>Are you saying there were no mass starvation events in various communist countries or that the mass starvation events had nothing to do with communism?
Nothing to do with communism for the vast majority.
>Of course you wouldn't support communism if you understood how exactly communism leads to mass starvation
Maybe you would support communism if you understood how much it didn't.
>There's a slight possibility that calorie intake dropped a little bit during the holomodor.
Yes, because it was famine caused by weather irregularities which led to an outbreak of crop rust in multiple republics. The "holodomor" also isn't a thing, as it implies purposeful genocide.
>The point you're missing is that standard of living didn't increase in the east and drop in the west. It increased in the east and increase way way more in the west. So in both cases a certain increase could be assigned to external factors. But the difference is still stark.
The difference was because the west was already industrialized and developed far before the USSR even became a thing, and had the benefit of more then a century of ongoing imperialism under their belt. In the context of where the west already was, the standard of living only increased marginally during the time of the USSR, while the USSR moved leaps and bounds.
>Americans were less healthy because they had too much to eat
To much of shitty overprocessed food, yes.
>and Soviets didn't have enough to overeat. Is that really the point you want to make?
The Soviets had enough relative to their population and didn't have food goods that were literally made to get consumers addicted to them through the amount of sugars stuffed in it. And this was while not engaging in imperialism abroad for certain food resources like the US did.
>>

 No.452258

>>452256
>How do you explain the absence of mass starvation events in capitalist countries?

<what is the dust bowl


>If the problems are geographical how to you explain the absence of famines in the same areas after USSR/Maoist China declined?


There were no famines in the USSR after 1947

>You take away those profits because muh equality or whatever.


Nothing says someone who does more work can't get more pay.
>>

 No.452284

File: 1633134935424-0.png (312.46 KB, 1785x2537, 4934fc52ea459f8556f01bef27….png)

File: 1633134935425-1.jpg (527.94 KB, 1050x950, 15d2ec1ad24b822989685217f9….jpg)

File: 1633134935425-2.png (123.75 KB, 497x792, de163a92b6ec2ed44efd2e6cb9….png)

>>452256
>How do you explain the absence of mass starvation events in capitalist countries?
What are you talking about, there have been multiple famines in capitalist countries. Do you just mean 1st world capitalist countries?
>If the problems are geographical how to you explain the absence of famines in the same areas after USSR/Maoist China declined?
There was an absence of famine before they declined, the USSR ended completely the cycle of famines that plagued Eastern Europe for centuries.
>If only the victims were J*ws and you'd go to jail for saying that.
Difference is the Nazis actually intentionally killed Jews and genocided them, while the USSR literally sent food to Ukraine to try and save the people there.
>I don't think that is an accurate statement. Even 40 years after the Berlin wall came down East Germany is still massively underdeveloped relative to the West
And during the USSR it was developed and was one of the centers of manufacturing and innovation in the Eastern bloc, so what does that say about capitalist west that it became reduced to area to be discarded and left to nearly stagnate decades later?
>and obviously they both started from the same level in 1946.
Not really, Eastern Germany was far more devastated then the west and didn't engage in imperialist ventures like the west after.
>And like I said, you can't demonstrate that improvements under the USSR wouldn't have happened anyway.
This is a non-argument because you can easily argue the opposite. And I don't see this being the case, as most of Eastern Europe was more useful as it was relative to the interests of the west. If it did develop it, historical precedent shows that it would have been relatively slow and in a worse off state compared to how the USSR was prior to WW2, and it would still operate as nothing more then an imperialized collection of countries that existed for primarily for the west to collect produce, raw materials, and some limited manufacturing from, as opposed to a world power.
>Literally anything would have been an improvement over Russia's shitty feudalism.
Yes, but only one thing offered a way out class systems as a whole.
>What the CIA document is saying is that Soviets don't have enough food but that's ok because not enough is "healthier" than too much.
No, it says they had more then enough food, just not the same breakup of food that the US had, because the USSR was still largely grain based (as is most of Eastern Europe). It wasnt that they didn't have enough, they ate sufficiently. They just didn't have the glut the US had due to its already established placed in the globally integrated capitalist network, to the detriment of other countries which provided much of it.
>Which doesn't really back up the point you're trying to make. Keep in mind the CIA is trying to justify its own existance so of course they are trying to frame everything in terms of "look how advanced the Soviets are give us more money pl0x".
So apparently literally everyone is wrong then besides those with no data whatsoever to their claims. What rigorous analysis.
>Don't forget we're supposed to be talking about >>451941
Yes, and it doesn't explain the situation in the USSR at all.
>You have a system where people who create surplus food are rewarded with profits. You take away those profits because muh equality or whatever. Now you've lost the surplus, what outcome do you rationally expect except shortages?
Marxists don't give a shit about "equality", that's not the point. And that isn't what occured or even how Kulaks operated. Kulaks acquired their "surplus" through usury and extortion of other peasants, especially during times of famine. They would loan shark less fortunate peasants who fell on hard times (which was common enough in Eastern Europe, as one bad harvest from weather or even disease could leave a family on the brink of death) in order to aquire either their land, their produce, and/or their labour. This would result in many peasant working the property of the Kulak primarily over their own to survive, or having to give the Kulak most of what they producedz which resulted in a surplus for Kulaks, but not for the whole peasant community. Soviet policy literally ended the cycle of famines in the USSR, and the initial shortage which to led the famine you are trying to use here occured due to a weather related disaster that swept across many parts of Eastern Europe, with there being both an initial drought, and then extremely wet and humid weather that created the conditions for a massive outbreak of wheat rust which resulted in the largest single loss of grain Soviet history.
>>

 No.452285

>>452256
Almost forgot this part
>A bigger point against you is China though. The moment China lifted restrictions on profit and private property in the 90s, development and standard of living went through the roof.
Standard of living went through the roof under Maoist China to begin with, current China simply builds on top of that. The most rapid increase in life expectancy occured under Mao, not Deng.
>And just like China becoming infinity better off by going from communism to semi-capitalism, countries that went from semi-capitalism to semi-communism like Venezuela got completely destroyed.
Venezuela didn't do "semi-communism" at all, it's still has a capitalist economy with a vast private sector. How is China "semi-capitalist" with is massive massive public sector and state control of industries, but Venezuela is "semi-communist" for nationalizing it's. Also, most of its issues have a lot more to do with ironically enough trying to maintain and appease a private sector that is constantly at odds with it, and massive international sanction upon it and intervention in it.
>So sorry but from where I'm standing the historical evidence is completely against you
Overwhelmingly the historical evidence supports what I have stated.
>>

 No.452286

File: 1633135776165-0.jpg (1.28 MB, 1920x957, 081ea106675579ea6c69826e93….jpg)

File: 1633135776165-1.jpg (242.7 KB, 1200x1200, af25a048fcf780b3a5be8a0f70….jpg)

>>452285
Forgot image.
>>

 No.452287

File: 1633135930822-0.png (90.38 KB, 660x398, bcdbae468d890f8ae6e6c80eed….png)

File: 1633135930822-1.png (168.85 KB, 525x929, 2a40f3d649b73373ef31004529….png)

File: 1633135930822-2.png (262.44 KB, 628x687, Peasants Kulak #1.png)

File: 1633135930822-3.png (247.71 KB, 622x705, Peasants Kulak #2.png)

File: 1633135930822-4.png (247.74 KB, 626x694, Peasants Kulak #3.png)

>>452284
Some other relevant information
>>

 No.452288

File: 1633136123739-0.png (249.35 KB, 623x703, Peasants Kulak #4.png)

File: 1633136123739-1.png (247.79 KB, 624x680, Peasants Kulak #5.png)

>>452284
Some other relevant information >>452287
>>

 No.452486

File: 1633722670359.jpg (298.17 KB, 2526x1200, will2.jpg)

>>449782

How do we stop neo-fascists and TERFs when they inevitably join forces?
Is there a realistic way of permanently removing TERFs from leftism as a whole?
It's gotten to the point where there's self-described TERF anarcha-feminists despite they're authoritarian as fuck
>>

 No.452489

File: 1633771735785.png (4.52 KB, 1056x1058, disb8.png)

>>452486
>idpol bait
>>

 No.452509

>>452489
Supporting trans uyghas isn't necessarily idpol. I mean the argument is but being against them is also idpol and total shit ontop of that.
>>

 No.452518

>>452509
the best position to hold on them is to not care tbh
they're like <1% of the actual population, they don't matter. Out of sight out of mind
>>

 No.452561

>>452518
Yeah I mean exactly. Who gives a shit.
>>

 No.452663

File: 1634260773529.png (590.88 KB, 767x533, China CCP outlaws fembois ….png)

What was the dialectical materialist rationale behind this?
>>

 No.452673

>>452663
None china is just reactionary
>>

 No.452676

File: 1634315045439-0.jpg (154.99 KB, 835x508, trillion jews.jpg)

File: 1634315045439-1.jpg (943.2 KB, 2424x5636, kikes jews.jpg)

File: 1634315045439-2.jpg (197.74 KB, 881x1024, 1629476710940.jpg)

File: 1634315045439-3.png (1015.5 KB, 665x689, 1629476906694.png)

File: 1634315045439-4.png (384.77 KB, 1069x737, 1628852909955.png)

>>451155
>>451157
>>451203
>>451198
>>451205
you can't be this stupid
look the world around you and you're still here
in ussr where were 400 jewish commanders and officers they all got kicked after the great purge
modern """fake lefitst""" doesn't support the working class they all kiss black lives matter and whatever the police tells them
i don't care if you think i'm a nazi or non lefist this shit has been going on for centuries been different doesn't mean been equal or have equality in a system
>hitler had a party called nationalist socialist german worker's party the only difference between communism and natsoc is that one is socialist and one isn't nationalist in the other hand you have modern capitalsm which is a economic model and liberalsm they both have roots in ancient facism
>https://grantnav.threesixtygiving.org/recipient/GB-CHC-1013880
>https://grantnav.threesixtygiving.org/funder/GB-CHC-1000147
>https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/1013880/financial-history
>https://grantnav.threesixtygiving.org/recipient/GB-CHC-1013880
>https://grantnav.threesixtygiving.org/funder/GB-CHC-205629
this is where your taxes goes to """gender""" education and rapefuges imports no workers support nothing and all theses laws are funded by kikes search up they names
i'm probably gonna get banned for this post but i don't care
>>

 No.452677

>>

 No.452680

>>452673
Reactionary to what?
>>

 No.452733

File: 1634587685602-0.jpg (30.29 KB, 220x599, Grey_SS_uniform.jpg)

File: 1634587685602-1.jpg (127.93 KB, 783x1390, a-grey-ss-service-uniform-….jpg)

File: 1634587685602-2.jpg (331.03 KB, 1280x1600, The_last_Jew_in_Vinnitsa,_….jpg)

File: 1634587685602-3.jpg (24.99 KB, 380x500, 51LVtMSxDeL._AC_SY780_.jpg)

>>452676
>3rd image
>Implying the SS only had one uniform
>Conflating the regular SS and the Einsatzgruppen
>Forgetting the Einsatzgruppen utilized to a large degree both the Order Police and local allied axis units, especially the Ustashe in Yugoslavia
>Forgetting the Ukraine is literally nowhere close to Yugoslavia and that in 1942, Yugoslavian partisans are still stuck fighting against Germany in Yugoslavia
Also, if it was a Jew shooting those civilians, it wouldn't be called "Jewish Action", as Jewish Action was literally the term for rounding up and executing Jews.
>>

 No.453213

File: 1636487819372.gif (41.35 KB, 550x400, excited gif soyjak tagme-8….gif)

>Nazis bad even though they controlled the economy according to the needs of the people and killed the rich
>>

 No.453214

Nazis didn't kill the rich retard. The nazis were supported by the rich.
>>

 No.453215

>privatizing the economy
<controlling the economy according to the needs of the people
<killing the rich
>>

 No.453392

File: 1637524491224.pdf (713.98 KB, 203x300, BuchheimScherner06.pdf)

>>453378
>They killed a lot of rich jews actually.
Didn't happen, the vast majority of wealthy Jews were simply permitted to leave.
>Rothschilds, Rockefellers, JP Morgan et al funded the USSR to stomp out Naziism. Something something stones and glass houses.
Also never happened, and there is zero proof of anything of the sort.
>Hitler privatized the economy but all large companies were required to join trade organizations directly controlled by the government (see the 1933 Act for the Formation of Compulsory Cartels)
No, they weren't. The trade organizations never applied any pressure to said corporations, and primarily only assisted in ensuring their interests were met by suppressing worker organizing within said corporations. Said companies were free to actively deny any demands made by the government, and frequently exercised it even in cases of critical wartime projects.
and small businesses were outlawed all together.
>and small businesses were outlawed all together.
This doesn't help your case, as the assets of liquidated businesses were given directly to existing major businesses.
>>

 No.453397

Former 1488 asian bro here, why aren't you guys based nazbol yet?
>>

 No.453406

>>453397
>why aren't you guys based nazbol yet?
Because it isn't a thing you terminally online retard. Stop getting your politics from memes and actually read Marx rather then jamming incompatible political and economic theories together.
>>

 No.453451

>>453445
>>453446
>>453447
The prophecy
>>

 No.453468

Whoa, unreal, this thread just proves leftist commies faggots are so delusional they can only cry and shift goalposts then rely on censorship to appear as if they won a debate.
Unironically proving that you're a bunch of uyghur kike worshiping cucks who are so weak and pathetic you can't hold your own even on your own board.
This is downright hilarious
>>

 No.453504

>>453468
keep coping
>>

 No.453505

>>453214
m8 adolf was homeless artfag
>>

 No.453506

reminder that lenin haven't worked a day in his life
>>

 No.453548

>>449782
>we are censoring the boards
cool got it
>>

 No.453586

>>

 No.453787

>>453777
Socialists have a theory for stages of development that come after capitalism. Communism is when you reach the development level where money has been replaced with labor-vouchers. You get 1 labor-voucher for 1h of work when you contribute work for 1 hour, and you could spend it for goods and services equivalent to 1h work contributed by others. That means you'd have to work for over a hundred thousand years nonstop to gain a billion labor vouchers. It safe to say that there would be no billionaires under socialism in the sense of it meaning a large amount of inequality. We would still strive economically for the average worker to have more wealth than current capitalist billionaires, and surpass capitalism in every metric.

I think the standard policy of socialists is to pay parents for raising children, So that there is no economic penalty for starting a family with kids, like there is today.
>>

 No.453794

File: 1641244287626.png (3.6 MB, 1148x1390, ClipboardImage.png)

Marxists present a 19th century outlook of the world, and that is exactly their problem when they try to criticize the US foreign policy today. The US foreign policy is created by 21st century men. What gave the US the edge for decades before the end of the Cold War was not necessarily the better economy or the greater army, but having a solid grip on the moral high ground.
The edge in US foreign policy was not given by Theodor Roosevelt, but by Woodrow Wilson; by FDR, Truman and Eisenhower, not by Johnson or Nixon; by Jimmy Carter, not by Reagan. This edge in moral high ground was the defining soft power in US foreign policy. The 14 points, refusal to threat foreign powers with the nuclear bomb, the consistent pursuit of the dismemberment of colonial empires, the importance given to human rights - these are the notions that differentiated US from USSR.
The USSR, on the other hand, has no high ground - has no soft power. It probably happen somewhere in Afghanistan, when the USSR refused to define the invasion and occupation of almost 1 mil people as genocide, because it did not serve any USSR interest. Marxists are thinking in terms of real politic - a 19th century notion - and lost grasp of the 21st century ideals that actually constituted the driving power behind the US foreign policy. Because if USSR is policing the World only when and where it suits its interest, that sure resembles true hegemony and true imperialism.
>>

 No.453812

>>453794
>What gave the US the edge for decades before the end of the Cold War was not necessarily the better economy or the greater army, but having a solid grip on the moral high ground.
idealism
>>

 No.453831

File: 1641528106857.png (557.01 KB, 1920x1080, Untitled.png)

>>

 No.453835

Are you retards ready to admit that you don't understand what a reliable source of information is?
>>

 No.453847

Reminder: You will never amount to more than a number awaiting being added to the statistics of transhumanist suicide. There is no solution to your problem apart from suicide which will come soon after you pay bank for some “doctor” to carve out your genitals until they are nothing more than a rotting and gaping wound that has to be constantly treated with measures to prevent your body’s biology from attempting to heal the open and gaping wound. Even if you go about your disgusting fucking dialation, no man will willingly stick his cock inside of your open wound. That open would will leak with pus and infection as it is exposed to the elements. Hair will grow internally as your former dick and ball skin follows it’s genetic code of growing body hair, not knowing it’s now inside of you. You will go to the doctor asking why your disgusting axe wound is not attracting any men and at most, he will shrug. However, if you get a doctor that is actually honest with you, he will tell you the truth. The truth that you continue to deny but will always be staring at you when you gaze into the mirror. The truth is that you will never be a woman. Once this finally hits you, you will end your own life as the reality of your life hits you. Nobody wants to encounter much less interact with a grown man wearing a dress. Your only way out is suicide you disgusting transhumanist.
>>

 No.454034

>>453847
tldr
seethe and mald
>>

 No.454055

>>454046
1. It's a matter of opinion and you opinion is dumb and based on brain worms

2. There's no proof the earth is flat and in order for it to be so every single person on earth, nearly, would have to be colluding to hide the fact. You can take literal flights to antartica

3. Where's the proobs tho. Also problem of evil

4. Absolute brain worms

5 brain worms

6.what

7. Literally who?

Touch grass.
>>

 No.454100

YWNBAW
>>

 No.454776

File: 1647182866340.png (21.85 KB, 725x571, 80f48ba90cc47a1dc033a44621….png)

>>

 No.454791

>>453835
imagine thinkling there are reliable sources of information
>>

 No.454806

>>450126
Liberty and socialism go hand in hand, do not bootlick the oxfords of capitalists.
>>

 No.454807

>>453831
government is bad, capitalist pig dog big pharma is bad. As an anarchist i see mandates as police state and therefore, bad. You should be allowed to do whatever you want without state repercussion
>>

 No.454809

>>454807
>whatever you want
>>

 No.454970

File: 1649006593808.jpg (5.66 MB, 4032x3024, MarxismValueToPriceContrad….jpg)

Can someone please explain this contradiction noted in picrel to me? It seems quite glaring for what should be a basic fact.
>>

 No.454971

>>454970
The "Answer:" section is for writing the best response in my own notes, for further study.
>>

 No.454973

>>454970
The first quote is from Value, Price, and Profit, my apologies.
>>

 No.457461

>>452663
The Chinese government understands that the world is a competitive place and puts national interests ahead of individual navel gazing
>>

 No.457969

File: 1664130233925-0.jpg (Spoiler Image, 104.23 KB, 1116x1278, hitlertheleader.jpg)

File: 1664130233925-1.jpg (147.8 KB, 864x573, mattchristmanonfascism.jpg)

Some other anon sugested i come here instead of .org as (supposedly) you anons are more capable of defending/articulating your views then the other lefty /pol/.
If any of you have such intellectual courage
I'd be happy to present argument against the Marxists thesis (specifically against the LTV, Marx's understanding of History, and Marx's understanding of class)
I'm also happy to answer any questions you have about National Socialism or even my own personal views if you so prefer
>>

 No.457970

My question is why do you call it socialism when it isn't.
>>

 No.457971

>He thinks a Chapo-tard is representative of the Left, or even the youth left.
They're not even influential among millennials anymore, right out the gate you start with a strawman.
>>

 No.457972

File: 1664131567756.png (154.31 KB, 680x680, hitlerwojack.png)

>>457970
I mean I would argue firstly that i do believe it is socialism and further I suspect you agree at least in so far as you accept that the Baathist projects of Iraq and Syria were Socialist projects.
These themselves are I would argue examples of National Socialism in practice as Baathism is only (in my estimation) National Socialism with Arab Characteristics.
>>457971
>He thinks a Chapo-tard is representative of the Left, or even the youth left.
To be completely honest that is something i somewhat believe regardless of how "influential" or popular they are objectively
I do genuinely think that sentiments such as this:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1dQUl6Hbfc
Sump up pretty well the thoughts and feelings of the average millenial "Democratic Socialist" in the US
but if your working from a different framework as an ML or a Maoist or whatever other movement or ideology you like yourself to i am more then happy to adress it opposed to the beliefs of others.
>>

 No.457973

>>457972
>I do genuinely think that sentiments such as this:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1dQUl6Hbfc
>Sump up pretty well the thoughts and feelings of the average millenial "Democratic Socialist" in the US
They don't, nothing that comes from the dirt bag left does. Chapo Trap House are all grifters. They were big 10 years ago but not now. At least quote Marx or maybe even Bernie Sanders, Chomsky, Chris Hedges, someone, anyone that isn't a long tired meme.
>>

 No.457974

>>457972
What do you define as socialism? I don't really agtree those projects were socialists. Socialism is not "Allowing the government to do something" Socialism is workers controlling the productive forces of society. You are just talking about monoply capitalism and you are a fag.
>>

 No.457975

Poast fizeek
>>

 No.457976

>>457974
Htf would 'workers controlling the MoP' even work.

Given history, you have to be somewhat retarded or naive to believe this platitude of somehow, someway, workers having a equal say in the economy.

Command economies largely failed. The best you ended up with was a uniparty state which, on one hand, tried to act in the best interest of the entire populace, and on the other, itself formed the basis of a privileged caste.

This, of course, is based… But a far cry from the leftcom fantasy
>>

 No.457977

>>457976
Democratic self management. Workers themselves democratically controlling production. We do it on this board in the matrix. Co-operatives do it. It was done in anarchist Spain and it can be done again.
People who constantly bemoan about "how it can be done" Either are under read, uneducated or lack the imagination to think of such possibilities themselves.

We have democracy, to an extent, today and of course we should apply it to more faucets of our lives.

Fascists lack imagination and the ability for reasoning. That's why they are fascists.

>Command economies


Go back to your econ 101 college class. Lunch is over.
>>

 No.457978

>>457969

Define national socialism.

Is is basically nationalist social democracy, for lack of a better term: i.e., something that vaguely approximates Peronism or China today?

Or is it some weird spergy cope that valorizes white people while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of whites are cucked fags who would gladly see you assfucked by the feds?
>>

 No.457979

File: 1664135843928.jpg (Spoiler Image, 820.17 KB, 2100x750, hitleronleftism.jpg)

>>457973
I mean i'm happy to adress the arguments of someone like Chomsky if you prefer or even guys like lennin or Marx
What specifically would you like me to argue against anon?
>>457974
>What do you define as socialism?
So if we're talking about Socialism in the Marxist sense its the abolition of wage labor, private property and market economies
In a less specifically Marxist sense it may describe economies based around either worker or state control of industry/property.
When i refer to
>"National Socialism"
I am refering to a system where in various industries are nationalized for the Good of the volk and where all industries, property ect may be nationalized or privatized depending on what best serves the interest of the people at that time.
It is quintisentially the valuing of the survival and prosperity of the species over property rights.
Again, as can be seen in practice in the economies of baathist Iraq and Syria
(pic also realted)
>I don't really agtree those projects were socialists
Fair enough
And i wouldn't consider them Marxist socialist either.
>Socialism is not "Allowing the government to do something" Socialism is workers controlling the productive forces of society.
Correct,
And Both Iraq and Syria (And the the Third Riech) exerted control over various major industries such as oil refinment, arms production ect in the name of the workers (along with the people of the nation more broadly construed)
>You are just talking about monoply capitalism and you are a fag.
Not really sure how a Nationalized industry can be an instance of monoply capitalism,
by definition.
>>

 No.457980

>>457979
>I mean i'm happy to adress the arguments of someone like Chomsky if you prefer or even guys like lennin or Marx
Well, get on with it then.
>What specifically would you like me to argue against anon?
Whatever you'd like.
>>

 No.457981

>>457979
But that's the thing. Nazis do not want to abolish the capitalist class and further they want to codify it. To a nazi workers and capitalists are to be programed to work together. This is reflective of the attitude and propaganda of the time. Fascism and Nazism are about class collaboration not about the abolition of these classes.

The wage labor, private ownership, and markets still exist.
>>

 No.457982

>>457979
>In a less specifically Marxist sense it may describe economies based around either worker or state control of industry/property.
State control economies aren't socialist. The US government controls the Military Industrial Complex but it's not considered socialist.
You're just talking about Stalinism.
>>

 No.457983

>>457981
cont: That's the point. Nationalization isn't just the point of socialism but it's SUPPOSED to put power into the hands of the people. Socialists understand this only can be done by democratic control, however. That's the point of socialism. Control of production and why nazis are not socialists.
>>

 No.457984

>>457979
>I am refering to a system where in various industries are nationalized for the Good of the volk
LMAO, how was getting BTFO'd in WWII "good for the volk". Hitler invaded Poland for the capitalist class, and he would have gotten away with it too but the capitalist class didn't just want more land, they wanted to challenge US hegemony. Neither were serving the interests of the "Volk".
>and where all industries, property ect may be nationalized or privatized depending on what best serves the interest of the people at that time.
Again, this is determined by Monopoly capital, not "the people".
>It is quintisentially the valuing of the survival and prosperity of the species over property rights.
It's actually the opposite.
>>

 No.457985

>>457977

>Democratic self management.


That's a platitude, but I'll bite.

Are you basically taking about a sort of council communism in which commodities are still produced (by worker owned firms) and traded in the market? If so, why hasnt that model taken off? Co ops exist. They just aren't especially competitive.

>Workers themselves democratically controlling production. We do it on this board in the matrix. Co-operatives do it. It was done in anarchist Spain and it can be done again.


>People who constantly bemoan about "how it can be done" Either are under read, uneducated or lack the imagination to think of such possibilities themselves.


Imagination is the key word there. I can imagine all sort of impractical things that will never actually work.

The little chat in matrix doesnt face any competitive pressure. There's essentially no benchmark for success or failure either than sputtering on another week.

If this was such a great model, why isn't it being done in the realm of actual production, i.e., outside of a chat about how to manage an image board, in which there are not grounded benchmarks for success or consequences for failure?

I'm not going to claim that I've read every retarded bit of socialist fanfiction speculating about vague possibilities for 'worker self management.'

But I have read a substantial amount of the ICM cannon, Mao's selected works, and a range of other communist lit. I'm just not sold on it - at least not the bit about a creating a classless, stateless utopia.

The fact is, every experiment in the vague platitude, 'workers democracy' socialism you describe has either failed or sputtered along (co ops still exist in Spain btw) without seeing any major breakthrough. Meanwhile, AES countries tend to liberalize after trying the command economy.

>Inb4: read more


Travel more

>We have democracy, to an extent, today and of course we should apply it to more faucets of our lives.


Democracy being successful in the real world is highly contingent on having a competent population… When you have shit people making decisions, you get shit results. And again, even when you have workers directly making decisions in some democratic way in their own firm, it doesn't guarantee success. How 'workers,' in an even more vague sense, would make decisions over the entire economy is certainly imaginative. So are marvel movies. Doesn't mean it applies to real life.

Again, all the imagination in the world won't save you from the reality of whether an economic model actually works in the sense of remaining competitive.

>Inb4: 'world revolution'


How many hypotheticals are you going to include in your imaginary proposed system?
>>

 No.457986

>>457985
>If so, why hasnt that model taken off? Co ops exist. They just aren't especially competitive.
Capitalist enterprise receive heavy funding from banks and subsides and military support from the government.
Co-ops have none of this support. Co-ops often can't even get financing.
>>

 No.457987

>>457983
How exactly do 'workers' control the means of production in any example of AES?

They vote in bureaucrats who they've never heard of? There's a reason why, even when attempted, this didn't work.

You should really travel to some of the existing socialist countries

>inb4: not real socialism


Yes comrade, I'm sure if they only had you to tell them the right way to do socialism, things would be better.
>>

 No.457988

>>457976
>Htf would 'workers controlling the MoP' even work.

This is not me but it is a true issue that even Lennin himself had to admit in the early days of the soviet union leading to the desolving of the worker councils and the federalization of the economy
>Command economies largely failed
This admittedly is a rather a shit point.
Command economies from the Egyptians to the soviets worked fairly well with minor shortages and inefficiencies being admited drawbacks; though in no way economy destroying cataclisms.
The soviet union did NOT fall because of the failures of its command economy
And more over it was NOT its command economy but its attempt to seriously assert worker control in its early days which led to most of the famines which have become of note.
The biggest failure of Socialist Command economy is probably Mao and thats more atributed to Mao being (personally) a fucking retard then the actual question of command economy itself which has been implemented to one degree or another throughout human history including the various experiments of Keyensianism and Central Banking.
>>457977
>Democratic self management. Workers themselves democratically controlling production.
A thesis which every Marxist project in history has been forced (by material conditions themselves) to abadone.
On its base level the issue with democratic control of the means of production is the same as democratic control in general.
Think on this question anon,
In order for a democratic polity to be well governed what is necessary for it flourish?
To my mind it requires a MAJORITY of the population to be intelligent, well educated on virtually all manners of economics state craft and social policy, generally interested in the premotion of the common good, non-emtionally biased, and politicaly engaged.
Now putting aside the question if we could find ANYONE who could trully live up to all these criteria to the fullest extent we would wish.
Which is more likely anon?
That we can find these qualities in the MAJORITY of a populace??
Or that we can find them in one man???
>>457978
>Define national socialism.
A political philosophy based around the Understanding of man as biological organism with the inherent nature, purpose and morality that entials.
The OBJECTIVE hereistic of
>"Better"
and
>"Worse"
that comes from it, along with the naturally following economic and political policies as such.
I can go into more depth on different aspects of the ideology as you wish
but this in truth is the Definition.
>Is is basically nationalist social democracy, for lack of a better term: i.e., something that vaguely approximates Peronism or China tod
If you want a good modern example Baathism is a varient of National Socialism and both the policies of Baathist Iraq and Syria (generally) can be understood as examples of National Socialism in practice.
>Or is it some weird spergy cope that valorizes white people while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of whites are cucked fags who would gladly see you assfucked by the feds?
The biological purpose of life remains the same regardless of how many of your species have been fucked over by material conditions my dude.
Just because humans droped to bellow 40,000 after the last volcanic winter didn't mean the purpose of humanity wasn't still to survive and procreate like every other evolutionary organism on the planet.
>>

 No.457989

>>457985


>Are you basically taking about a sort of council communism in which commodities are still produced (by worker owned firms) and traded in the market? If so, why hasnt that model taken off? Co ops exist. They just aren't especially competitive.


This is a common question that is asked and I get really tired of answering it, but, the reason is should be obvious, imo. It isn't as competitive in a capitalist system where profits are the alpha and omega to all interactions on the market. Mass generation of profits doesn't actually mean it's efficient in any way that matters. It only means it's efficient in a capitalist market economy. So, it's not that they are bad at production. They are quit good at production and improving peoples lives. I mean people who work at mondragon absolutely love it.
It's that they are not as efficient at pumping out worthless shit like capitalist enterprises.

Furthermore People have been heavily conditioned not to actually be able to think let alone think of alternative modes to the current economic system and alternative economic systems all together. The capitalist class has done everything in its power to prevent the working masses becoming educated in history and labor relations for obvious reasons because they want workers to be blind obedient sheep to work the factories and shine their shoes which is another reason why it hasn't "taken off" because people literally lack the fundamental education and knowledge to be able to actually achieve it as an enterprise.
And even more so; It's incredibly difficult to obtain the over head needed to start a co-operative in a captialist economy. Banks are much less likely to invest in a coop because it is a much more risky investment.


Also it should be obvious that socialists can't just snap our fingers and make the work run on democratic management which is how anarchistic socialist economic systems depend on to run. You can't have a small firm be run democratically by workers based on labor notes and still live inside of a capitalist system over all.

>Imagination is the key word there. I can imagine all sort of impractical things that will never actually work.


People said the exact same thing about capitalism during feudal times and there are documents supporting this, yet, here we are.
>>

 No.457990

>>457988
Baathist Iraq no longer exists because it was unable to defend its regime from overthrow by US invasion. And Baathist Syria is effectively a puppet of Moscow, while also de facto ceding control of its northern territory to USA, Turkey, the FSA at Idlib and the Golan Heights to Israel. How are either an example of being "good for the volk" if they can't even effectively defend the "volk" from foreign aggression?
>>

 No.457991

>>457986
>I am refering to a system where in various industries are nationalized for the Good of the volk and where all industries, property ect may be nationalized or privatized depending on what best serves the interest of the people at that time.
It is quintisentially the valuing of the survival and prosperity of the species over property rights.
Again, as can be seen in practice in the economies of baathist Iraq and Syria
(pic also realted)

>And Both Iraq and Syria (And the the Third Riech) exerted control over various major industries such as oil refinment, arms production ect in the name of the workers (along with the people of the nation more broadly construed)


Assuming he's not going to go on some 'gas the kikes' rant, the natsoc is actually more grounded than the 'everyone did socialism wrong because it doesn't live up to the standards of my imaginary version of it'-leftists

<However, notice how he avoided the problem of whites being fags
>>

 No.457995

File: 1664137506466.png (186.16 KB, 415x395, 1664019327252069.png)

A vote was held on the matrix and the decision to merge the natsoc thread into the right wing debate thread won out. So I am just making sure people in this thread know what is going on.&#010;&#010;Thanks.
>>

 No.457996

>People said the exact same thing about capitalism during feudal times and there are documents supporting this, yet, here we are.

This difference being: capitalist england surpassed fuedal Spain on a practical, material level, which secured for it a stark competitive advantage.

It wasn't a case of 'after lots of debates, people began to see the merits of capitalism over fuedalism'

The fact that you told me to read more is hilarious
>>

 No.457997

>>457989
>You can't have a small firm be run democratically by workers based on labor notes and still live inside of a capitalist system over all.

Why not? You were just talking about how much workers love working at mondragon..

>Also it should be obvious that socialists can't just snap our fingers and make the work run on democratic management which is how anarchistic socialist economic systems depend on to run


<How many hypotheticals are you going to include in your imaginary proposed system?
>>

 No.457998

So basically we've reached the point of the debate where all of socialist history was wrong but they would have succeeded if only they were led by someone as smart or principleed as (checks notes) random anon on an image board
>>

 No.457999

>>457997
>>Why not? You were just talking about how much workers love working at mondragon..

Mondragon still relies on profits to run. So, while, the lives of the workers under it are drastically better, this still comes with its own macroeconomic issues.

Super profits, monoplization, etc etc. Kind of like unions. Unions and coops are good, but, not revolutionary and not socialist inherently.

><How many hypotheticals are you going to include in your imaginary proposed system?


Philosophy and economics are literally all about hypothetical. Cope. Economics is nearly all based on deductive reasoning.

>>457996

>The fact that you told me to read more is hilarious


It's not funny you deff need to read more.

People didn't begin to see the "merits" of capitalism over feudalism. Only rich aristocrats and faggy merchants pushed this narrative. Peasants demanded systems more akin to Proudhons anarchism than anything considering they basically lived in a more primitive communist society. Many people saw what the aristocrats were doing at the time to actually be an attack on their way of life and this carried over well into the industrial revolution.

I mean obviously you know about the enclosures right?
>>

 No.458000

>Mondragon still relies on profits to run. So, while, the lives of the workers under it are drastically better, this still comes with its own macroeconomic issues.

Good thing the imaginary socialism in your head has so many hypotheticals attached to it those those macroeconomic pressures have been nullified

>Economics is nearly all based on deductive reasoning.


It's really not. It's all, do you produce more economic surplus (and is it as wisely reinvested to accomplish the same) than the existing competitors? It's this surplus which materially supports a state, army, etc.

>Peasants demanded systems more akin to Proudhons anarchism than anything considering they basically lived in a more primitive communist society. Many people saw what the aristocrats were doing at the time to actually be an attack on their way of life and this carried over well into the industrial revolution.


And yet, nothing came of since the capitalist enterprises were able to accumulate and reinvest surplus at a faster rate. If it were possible for proudhonian workshops to outcompete (i.e., accumulate economic surplus) faster than capitalist ones, they would have.

What else would have been the condition for such anarchist revolutionaries to succeed?

>Inb4: revolutionary warfare


Supported on what material basis - I e., Who feeds and supplies the fighters?
>>

 No.458001

Just say it anon

You are smarter and more principled than any leader of any socialist country throughout history. Every mistake that made was due to them not following the one true path which you are privy to. If only you came to power of Lenin or Stalin, sure everything would have worked out.

And who you play sports, the other team just stops trying to win. Success is just a matter of having better, more pure ideas that bedazzles the competition into giving up.
>>

 No.458002

>>458000
>has no response so he just falls back on saying "well socialism isn't real so"


>It's really not. It's all, do you produce more economic surplus (and is it as wisely reinvested to accomplish the same) than the existing competitors? It's this surplus which materially supports a state, army, etc.


It literally is you retarded faggot. You cannot measure game theory.



>Capitalist enterprises took over by force so they are the only reasonable mode of production


Yeah I am starting to think moving that thread to the sticky was the right move.
>>

 No.458012

>>458002
>'Capitalist enterprises took over by force so they are the only reasonable mode of production'

Which other one was more reasonable at that period of history. i.e., what was plausible and progressive at that time?

>Yeah I am starting to think moving that thread to the sticky was the right move.


Given that your politics appear more and more like ghey liberal idealism rather than Marxism with each passing reply, I bet you do.

Having people poke holes in your fantasy of layers hypothetical situations must suck.
>>

 No.458013

>>458002
>You cannot measure game theory

Has no response so falls back into some bullshit he learned in freshman philosophy class at western liberal university
>>

 No.458015

>>458013
>memes

This is a fact of economics. I am sorry you think people consider economics to be like particle physics.
>>

 No.458027

>>458015

The difference being, I'm talking about economies in the real world, i.e, people producing things to survive and reproduce their societies.

You, on the other hand, are engaged in a speculative philosophical exercise. This is why everything you say about 'real socialism'(tm) is a vague platitude.

I've literally asked like 5 times how 'workers' would democratically control the entirely of the means of production. You laughably point to a matrix chat which has like 5 active members as some embryotic form of workers democracy and finger wave about how I 'just don't get it' after you insert even more vague and speculative platitudes. In one breath you point to mondragon. In another you say, 'well akshually that's not real socialism (tm) either.'

Instead of critiquing the natsoc on the obvious (larpy and impossible traditionalism; countries stagnating under a personalist dictator; the vast majority of hwites reviling the word Nazi; the horrible physique of the dude in ops pictures - all things which undercut their actual argument), you play yourself by resorting to saying, 'well, since you aren't striving to create a classless utopia, you're bad.'

Advanced case of brainworms. But at least your soul is pure and beautiful. Never change, summer child.
>>

 No.458033

File: 1664170371566.jpg (147.8 KB, 864x573, 1664130233925-1.jpg)

>master race

Pic related

<LOOOOOOOL
>>

 No.458036

>>

 No.458037

>>458027
I think you actually are just appealing to your pre-programed responses because you are an artifical intellegence and not even a very good one. If you can't plainly understand how democracy works then I can't help you you are too stupid to actually understand how, well; pretty much anything.

Have you seriously never read about dragoon or how unions work? I mean no offense but do you want me to hold your hand for you on everything?
>>

 No.458468

File: 1665013370637-0.jpg (68.83 KB, 750x714, itwontbeeasy.jpg)

File: 1665013370637-1.jpg (166.67 KB, 800x1202, Nietzsche.jpg)

>>449782
>tfw lefty pol finnally grew the balls to defend their ideology
Well genuinely and without any irony congradulations on that front.
It takes a certian level of confidence to actually allow your views to be rationally challenged and it further speaks to your integrity and intellectual courage.
Regardless tho,
as some of you may know of me from past threads.
I am an American National Socialist.
My three primary critiques of Marx are:
>1.
Againist the Labor Theory of Value
>2.
Against the Marx's Understanding of Class
>3.
Against Marx's understanding of Historical Materialism.
If anyone here is further daring enough to inquire on any of these points i will be happy to explain in more detial
further,
if anyone wants to ask me a question more generally on National Socialism/my own personal views
I will be happy to answer directly and coherently as quickly as i can
>>

 No.458469

>>458468
What is your bone to pick with the labor theory of value? It seems pretty consistent to me.
Maybe explain a little better nad Marx's conceptualization of class is even more solid in my opinion as it does away with the idealistic notions of wealth being proportional to ones class and bases it firmly in material reality upon relations to production. E.G Workers have nothing to sell but their labor power and the capitalist class lives of the production and surplus of that labor doing no labor of their own, or, doing labor that is only relevant to the management of labor and not the actual production of anything useful for society.

Owners manage the affairs of capital but you won't find them on a supermarket or factory floor for example.
>>

 No.458484

>>458469
>What is your bone to pick with the labor theory of value?
Alright so firstly in order to adress the Labor theory of Value we must first define the labor theory of value. This may seem mundane or perhaps overly formal but I find it is necessary, generally speaking in these discussions, to specifically define catagories in order to meaningfully talk about them.
If you have any doubts regarding the correctness of my interpretation of Marx's Theory of Value please refer to the following by one most prominent modern Marxist professors of our age where in he describes the labor theory of value in basically the same terms:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mI_RMQEulw
Now,
The Labor Theory of Value,
Broadly understood can most simply be stated as such; the laborers which produce a given product produce as such the whole of the economic value of the product, meaning (inherently) any profit achieved by the owner of the means of production (the capitalist) manifests as such direct and material "Exploitation" of or "theft from" the laboring classes who created the product which the owner sold along with its value.
Now on surface level this makes inuitive sense, and when studied more deeply one can (in all honesty) EVEN point to a variety of economic studies which find a strong predictive relationship between the labortime/skill of the worker and the economic value of the good it produces.
This relationship however is NOT in perfect correlation; meaning (inherently and OBJECTIVELY) Labor CANNOT be the determinative basis for the value of a good.
Now there are a range of specific anecdotal examples one can point to as case studies of this phenomenon, "luxory cars" made with LOWER skilled workers working LESS and WORSE materials selling at prices higher then catagorically superior conpetitors, ""fine"" wines similarly disposed selling for more then more common wines, and of course the vast and frankly comical difference in the values of various minerals and ores utterly unmored from their refinement or extraction costs.
All of this pointing to the simple perhaps disapointingly obvious conclusions that Demand is what creates value; labor does not.
If half of the US populace decided to become Vegan tommorow, it goes without saying, the price of milk would drop dramatically (as i would point out is not a purely hypothetical experiment, given the history of various dietary religious specifications imposed throughout history)
This by the way is actually one of the BETTER Axis along with Capitalism can be meaningfully critique, as owing to its varient and undistinguishing form, it holds no value for human life or human betterment and as such eroneously value arbitrary goods such as bitcoin contemporarily or tulips durring the dutch tulip bubble with no consideration of the public good.
Now at this point it is often the case the Marxists in such debates will attempt to make a distinction between
>"Price"
and
>"Value"
Claiming that
>>>>"""Price"""
is that which varies arbitrarily (including in the long run such as in the case precious medals) while
>"Value"
is what the worker produces and which is objective.
If this is the argument made there is of course only one following question,
How then under such understanding is the worker being exploited by Bourg??
As the worker only produces (under this understanding) in imaterial essoteric undefinable catagory of "value"
while the owner only profits off the basis of "Price" (a catagory supposedly completely independent of value.
>Marx's conceptualization of class
Woudl you like me to go over this as well??
>>

 No.458710

>>457979
Isn't the linking of personality and private property in a way an admission of Marx's principle of "conditions forming ideas" being correct?
>>

 No.458746

File: 1665518893492.jpg (247.98 KB, 1600x900, 1665413767572996.jpg)

>>458484
I kind of take issue with this understanding of the theory though and even among the most well read minds on the subject there is intense debate about the sbuject matter of the labor theory of value. As I understand it the LTV is about the utility of commodities and exchange relationships between capitalists in market economics.
Labor creates everything of utility, or, value as marx would put it. The capitalist then usurps this product of the workers labor and returns him a wage which is made to represent labor time of what the worker works and the work the capitalist would otherwise have done had he not simply "owned" goods magically which gave him the ability to magically not work.
That's where the surplus and exploitation happens not just on the surplus profit itself. You're working 3x harder than you wpuld in a situation that would otherwise not be had it been for the economy we have today.
Secondly, not economic teory not even supply and demand can really be codified as "objective" science. As even you yourself admit many case studies show that labor and profit are heavily correlated.
Value = utility. Marx clearly states this on chapter 1 of capital. You don't have to agree but it stands up among most retorts. At least from what I have seen.
The exploitation happens because you are working for yourself and the borg to sustain a living rather than just yourself. This relationship manifest in the mass production of commodities for the borg to be exchanged at a later date for profit.
>>

 No.458776

Low tax rates encourage the rich to pay them more than high ones, no? Any further needs should be negotiated through union contracts rather than government demands. Most socialists I have met trust the unions more than Democraps anyway, so why would you vote for them unless you're there for the social policy(in which case I would say vote LP).
>>

 No.458817

>>458776
Vote LP? we don't have an LP in the USA. I vote dem cause of social issues and I guess even their economic polices are better than faggy republicans.
>>

 No.458818

>>458817
Psy oped Vaushite
>>

 No.458819

>>458818
Can you morons think of anything other than "generic NPC response #15654?" I literally just got the exact same response about a totally un related issue on 4chan. You are useless.
>>

 No.458820

>>458819

You voted democrat because youre ghey. We get it
>>

 No.458878

File: 1665679668903.jpg (144.28 KB, 800x1600, kanyememe (1) (1) (1) (1) ….jpg)

Consequences will never be the same
>>

 No.458969

>>458817
You do understand I mean Libertarian Party? I'm quite certain you have one.
>>

 No.459256

My main critique after re-reading WLC and VPP is this; the way that Marx values necessary labor is by the price of the necessaries one consumes to perform it; however, surely a price would not only contain the necessary labor for its production, but the surplus labor that the capitalist must take to be a capitalist. Does this mean that at some level that surplus labor also constitutes the "true" value of a product?
Is this something that I need to re-read Chapter 10 of VPP, for?
>>

 No.459257

>>459256
I thought Marx equates value to the utility of an object.payijg your workers enough to eat is just over head cost.
>>

 No.459385

>>459257
Whether an object has value(e.g a use-value) is based on whether it has some utility, and exchange-value is dependent on the rules of supply and demand, but Marx affirms the value of a commodity is based on the average(he says 'socially necessary') labor needed to produce it.

In the case of labor itself, however, the value of it is based on the value of the necessary goods needed to reproduce labor(e.g food, water, shelter, etc.), and this is where my critique lies. I suppose the rule would apply to shelter as well, but I don't think that it would need a separate answer altogether.
>>

 No.459395

>>459385
>>459385
Average labor time is a phenomenon that arises under the system of capitalism. The only trye objective value commodities have are their utilities.
>>

 No.459544

Why is leftypol anti-porn?
I thought nofap was right wing incel brain damage, but I finally find this place and now another anti-porn rule
Are all political ideologies anti-porn?
I now feel much less lefty because this place is anti-porn.
>sadface.jpg
>>

 No.459545

>>459544
Anti porn rule? Where what are you talking about?
>>

 No.459559

>>459545
>2. Pornography should not be posted on /leftypol/ or /meta/
It's the same as fucking 4pol
This board is basically the same as literal Nazis
>>

 No.459560

>>459559
Fascism is when can't compulsively masturbate
>>

 No.459569

>>459559
Retard post it on /b/. What a spoiled brat
>>

 No.459581

Where do I go if I hate leftists and rightists? (Where I define "leftist" as "Marxist and/or revolutionarily socialistic" and "rightist" as "socially conservative, fascistic, and/or Social Darwinistic".)

No, I'm not a "centrist" or "moderate". I just fucking despise those two particular categories I laid out. Why isn't there an imageboard for normal people who aren't "millions must die"-facing in their room?
>>

 No.459582

>>459581
You're a lib and it's called crystal.cafe
>>

 No.459866

>>459582
spot on
>>

 No.459885

>>459581
reddit.com
>>459582
they are leftist just not marxist
>>

 No.459900

>>459885
If they are "leftist," then "leftist" is a term without a definition.
>>

 No.459938

File: 1667203471199.jpg (31.47 KB, 479x544, 312870889_5821109407911730….jpg)

>>449782
Can I ask the right wingers a question in here?

Do you even know what it's like to be a big strong, virile Chad?

Right wingers seem to in general be like angry sadistic lockershoved bullies who fantasize about women they don't know fervently. They do things such as eat humans or torture cats. That is not "Chad" behavior.

Just wondering if any Right Wingers in here know what it's like to be a real feminine, sensitive man who respects women and animals, even bugs.
>>

 No.460137

File: 1667557770079.jpg (168 KB, 959x1280, IMG_20221030_010450_197.jpg)

>>459938
So true!
>>

 No.460146

>>460137
Why are they all blonde?
>>

 No.460292

I don't really see the point of debate. Nothing really needs to be said. Marxism is dead. You know it, and many of us know it. Communism today is just a meme. A post-1960's Gladio boogeyman that the system uses to scare NatSocs into dragging us back into some conveniant position for their anti-socialist suppression. It's a boogeyman the systme blames for its own market liberal capitalist faults. The litnay of conservative grifters cry out "it's those damn marxists running the system" as wall street gets another bailout. Marxism is not a threat. It's an ideological sandbox for people still stuck in the post-war moral mental labyrinth. Just look at this board. It's dead. Look at reddit communist boards. Dead. No movements, no popular support. The last spark was Corbynism and it was crushed with ease by the system, and it's crushing was a result of Marxists refusing to understand race or the racial hierarchy of the system we live in. Youur solidarity is so broken, you split your dead marxist boards into two different boards over minor differences. Honestly, I'd have no problem with putting on a red beret and yelling workers of the world unite in a glorious revolt against capitalism, but it's not going to happen. You just don't understand this system, who runs it, why they run it the way they do and how you are manipulated by it. For this reason alone, you will always fail. You will always be manipulated into failure. You will be infiltrated, dominated and lured into the same pitfalls of the last seven decades. You refuse to learn from the past. You refuse to admit the reality of race. Admittedly, alot of NatSocs don't get this either. They think they do, but they don't, but you certainly don't. Corbynism was defeated by Zionism. Memo's were written about this, by Marxists, and did they learn from this? No. Marxists have consistently lost for seven decades against Liberalism and its zionist hierarchy. Marxism has capitulated at every step. While Nazi Germany had to be destroyed by three world empires, made up of an alliance of communists and capitalists - it's revolution was butchered to a man, fighting to the bitter end. Meanwhile, the late great Soviet Union was sold at a yard sale, sold off piece by piece, without fanfare, and without a shot being fired. That is the legacy of Marxism; Capitulation and failure. A worldview created for the express purpose of undermining European Socialism at its time, elevating a state that executed anti-semites, and then demolished when that same state was overtaken by slavic nationalism and emerged as an anti-zionist threat.

Honestly, what is there to argue? What can you offer me and my people? You're a dead worldview that can't even maintain unions. You can't maintain enough solidarity to have one board. What could your dead worldview and dead boards offer me and my people? More ridiculous theory, as capitalism crushes my people. More whimsical fantasies of some global republic, even as ethnic divisions gain more violent momentum? More ridiculous notions of racial blindness, as my people are accused of blood libel and openly vilified by the system? What do you offer me and my people that National Socialism does not? Our martyrs and dissidents are numerous. Our influence grows despite our rampant persecution. Good men and women are crushed by this system for speaking out for my people. I have no doubt some of you naively celebrate this, out of some vindictive vicaruous desire for power that you don't have and never will.

I'll say this. I respect you Marxists. More than anyone else. The libertarians are slaves or slavers. The Liberals are status-seeking cowards. The conservatives are broken house slaves. You wield a revolutionary spirit. I like that in you people. You understand this system is illegitimate, immoral and evil. You want it gone, but you will never achieve that. You couldn't when we held power, you didn't when we were annhilated, and you have only lost more despite not having us as a competitor.
You are a dead worldview, a meme, a myriad of books no one will ever read. A dead board, mocked by your own dead politic.

You cannot offer us anything.
>>

 No.460296

>>460292
>Nothing really needs to be said. Marxism is dead.
And yet you felt the need to say it.
I guess Marxism isn't dead after-all.

You can't really refute Marx's arguments about economics or material reality in general, and hence you seek to socially discredit his ideas instead. It's very obvious.
>>

 No.460315

>>460292
Marxism has influenced more people on earth arguably than the bible.
>>

 No.460396

>>460315
And just like Christians, most marxists don't read the damned book.
>>

 No.461130

>>460296
>You can't really refute Marx's arguments about economics
what if I told you national socialists believe in socialist economics.
>>

 No.461131

>>461130
B b b based
>>

 No.461233

>>461130
I would ask you what you think socialist economics are.
>>

 No.463359

Hey hey people, christian fanatic here.
First time posting here.
On the topic of superstructures: Marx said
>The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political, and intellectual life.
And:
>The changes in the economic foundation lead, sooner or later, to the transformation of the whole, immense, superstructure. In studying such transformations, it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic, or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.
As explained by CatAnon on leftypol.org, this means basically that commies don't know what will happen with the superstructure once communism will be enacted, but only how "the base" will operate in such an environment (i.e. communist environment).
From my understanding, it's actually just Marx not being able to explain what is the value of these kind of jobs. For example, how would you value the work of a artist? I mean, these jobs are inherently capitalistic (i.e. they are prone to an application of classic economics' laws first and foremost) in nature: the "best" one will sell more, and become subsequentially rich.
My question is: if the media is a superstructure, the lack of criteriae that determines whether or not a specific structure of this market is part of the communist society will prevent the determination by the people part of said society of its characteristics, leading to a paradox: in a communist society there may be people (read as: "glowies") working in the media who will claim that the society is not communist, and by doing so preventing the proletarians to acknowledge the fact that they indeed achieved such a feat (i.e. creating a communist society) at last. In other words, the glowies, through the means provided by the media, can create a post-truth that can prevent the creation of a communist society altogether, prior, during and even after its constitution.
Likewise, a glowie can create a fallacious society and declare it "communist", proving that its crumbling is due to the Marxist theory to be flawed.
So my question is: if the mind cannot see (also read as: "comprehend", "actualize", but also "define") the existance of communism in the real world, how will it be achieved in the first place?
>>449970
>believe
Idolatry is a sin, anon.
>>

 No.463361

>>463359
This is literally insane pshycobable
What do you mean by how would art be "valued in communism?" Art would be valued exactly as it is now. E.G Subjectively. And of course no one knows what will happen with certainty but you can make educated guesses and deductions by extrapolating from what happens now.

For example, because of capitalism the current mode of production is mainly driven by the accumulation of profits, so, this creates a system of alienation where people become further and further from one another because any time you are not producing profits or generating profits in some way is time spent not making money for the capitalist overlords.
We can see this in social media like tictok, facebook, fbi.gov, instagram, etc etc etc where your every moved is bought and sold to investors to sell you targeted ads.

What you are saying makes no sense and is frankly kind of silly. Like media as we know it wouldn't even exist under communism. Media as it exists today is used as a means to enforce the capitalist hegemony. Building socialism is something that is done by the masses so there's little reason to believe that anyone retard would have any attention paid to him. It just doesn't make sense.
>>

 No.463364

>>463361
>This is literally insane pshycobable
My deepest apologies, anon. English is not my first language, you see, so I tend to express myself in a quite uncanny way.
>What do you mean by how would art be "valued in communism?"
Clearly, I am talking here about the economic aspects of value, because I am talking about an economic theory (i.e. the marxist economic theory). In other words, I rhetorically asked how would you pay an artist in a communist society? By the number of books he sells? He will become extremely rich. What about an actor, then? On the number of movies he is part of? Can he contract his salary? What if he is famous? In that case, he would have such a bargaining power, that he will make the film director go broke! Also, how will movies be made? Will the proles have a whip-round for the film?
Last example: what if I don't wanna work. I will say I work as an artist, specifically a trap artist, and publish one album each month. Will I be entitled to receive a pay for it? What if I suck?
>this creates a system of alienation where people become further and further from one another because any time you are not producing profits or generating profits in some way is time spent not making money for the capitalist overlords.
Why would isolation be an effect of capitalism? From my perspective, capitalism tries to reroute social interations through means that will produce profit, not reduce their numbers. As we can see, social networks have increased to such an extent social interactions, that the apocalyptic future described by John B. Calhoun doesn't seem so distant after all.
>What you are saying makes no sense and is frankly kind of silly.
And yet you agree with me by saying:
>Media as it exists today is used as a means to enforce the capitalist hegemony.
I have to point out that we (you and me) actually disagree on one thing. I argued in my previous post that media can be used to enforce any political ideology hegemony, not only the capitalist one. For media stands for mass media, which is a mode of mass communication. But communication of what, you might ask? I argue it started out as a mean to transfer informations to a (throughout history) progressively large audience (first it was the bourgeoisie, then the proletariat, then both of them considered together, etc. ). This characteristic is still to this day key to define what mass media means. Such characteristic, in my opinion, will translate in a communist society, while other key features present in the mass media of the capitalist societies (like propaganda) will be eliminated in the "communist-type" mass media.
>Building socialism is something that is done by the masses
I partially disagree: socialism will be built by the masses under the direction of certain people who will coordinate the work. How would you otherwise build a factory? Will you rely on a hivemind? I hope not.
You need not only the directors in this deed, but a strong IS (cfr. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_system, for an introductory page on the topic) that will adjuvate the directors in their operation. The IS, if considered in a broader setting of society as a whole, corresponds to mass media.
>there's little reason to believe that anyone retard would have any attention paid to him.
Let me specify: you are saying that retards will not be paid attention to? I have to go a little bit of topic now, but how do you explain Gorbachev then? With all the due respect, he and Yeltsin were a little bit unstable, yet they arrived to such positions that made them considerably powerful. I agree they are not part of the media, but, especially with Yeltsin, people voted for him because he was a very public figure.
Honestly, I consider them both glowie's assets, which reached a point where they could condition proles into thinking that private property's what they (the proles) needed.
Why wouldn't in the media sector happen what happened in the political sector of USSR?
>>

 No.463373

>>463364
>how would you pay
>communist society
I believe that I have discovered the source of your confusion.
>>

 No.463383

>>463373
Trully a great mistake on my part, anon. Apologies! I have unconsciously thought that 2 Thessalonians 3:10 would apply to communism as well, not only to the socialist phase.
Nevertheless, I do still consider it necessary in a communist society some kind of control to exist. For what will happen if every manchild will claim to be a worker, by streaming Nuzlocke runs on Twitch everyday?
>>

 No.463385

>>463383
Everyone deserves the basic necessities. Water, foo, shelter, clothing, etc etc.

It's har dto flesh out what your qualm exactly even is. Epecially since you, rather annoyingly, keep using green text to cherry pick peoples arguments apart leading to things that could be answered simply by reading the whole conversation.

I didn't say that isolation effects capitalism in a negative way. It effects people in a negative way. Capitalism needs this alienation as, again, as I said, when people are not producing profits for capital that is time spent not makign money for capital owners. I also gave examples so how you are arguing against this reality is beyond me, but, it is not unlike ancpas and other autsrians to deny reality.


Your ahistorical acceptance of great man theory makes it impossible for you to understand what we are talking about because you do not see the world as a historical accumulation of forces which lead men to act in certain ways. But you see it as people just rising to the occasion free of the influence of historical and material forces. All in vaccuum.

People don't pay attention to nazis now and they wnt pay attention to retards under a socialistic mode of production.
>>

 No.463767

>All right wing nonsense posted outside of this thread will be subject to a deletion hence forth if deemed necessary.
Isn't it about time this thread was unstickied and replaced with something more congruent with the moderation beliefs of this webzone? It's quite apparent we have actual Nazis lurking around the topic of Ukraine in other threads now.
>>

 No.463768

>>463767
>It's quite apparent we have actual Nazis lurking around the topic of Ukraine in other threads now.
Natoids are not necessary nazoids. Libs are natoids too.

Majority of ziggers on the other hand are nazoids too, only draped in red. Which deserves even harsher punishment, because in the final analysis the primary enemy of communist movement is social fascism.

If we ban nazis we should ban ziggers and right socdems in general too.

also to all the social fascists who read this, before you sperg out, by nazoids I mean socdem national chauvinists, ie - you
the difference is that nazoids become full blown nazis only when faced with the radical proletarian movement, what they tended to call "bolshevism"

Mussolini is the prime example of a nazoid in his early syndicalist days
>>

 No.463772

>>463767
>>463768
How about we don't ban leftists for not agreeing with you on certain principles? I assume that we are all on a chan, because we don't want to be on a reddit. These "nazi" accusations are nothing more than the mad flailings of faggots who can't argue a point. inb4 oh, you must really be a nazi yourself then.
>>

 No.463773

>>463772
I don't want mods to ban anyone except spammers (repeated same messages), CP (not cartoons), and guro (not cartoons).

I'm just pointing out the sheer absurdity of ziggers crying to ban nazoids.
Like, bitch, you will be the first to go lol.
>>

 No.463778

>>463772
>These "nazi" accusations are nothing more than the mad flailings of faggots who can't argue a point.
Mmm, it's a bit more than that at this point. What do you call someone repeating ancient Nazi propaganda about the "Holodomor", constantly talks about how people from some adjacent nationality are subhuman and takes glee in their deaths? If it walks and talks like a Nazi, it's probably an actual Nazi. Now I don't have any problem debating bad Nazi arguments, but isn't the whole point of this thread to contain them within here? If that is the point, why are they allowed to spew their nonsense outside of it? If that is not the point of this thread anymore, then it's about time this thread was retired.
>>

 No.463823

>>463778
>What do you call someone repeating ancient Nazi propaganda about the "Holodomor"
Liberals do the same thing. The Victims of Communism people are all liberals.
>constantly talks about how people from some adjacent nationality are subhuman and takes glee in their deaths
I've definitely heard liberals do that.
>If it walks and talks like a Nazi, it's probably an actual Nazi.
Or it could be a lolbert. That's the thing–until they start talking about ethnostates, jewish conspiracies, and the aryan master race it is impossible to differentiate nazis from liberals.
>>

 No.464053

i dont really get you guys. Nazis worship death aesthetic, is the op pic meant to demoralize them or moralize you? skulls = look cool
>>

 No.464064

>>464053
>is the op pic meant to demoralize them
considering that it's a skull of a nazi - yes

it's cool and edgy to carry insignia with a skull - until it dawns on you that it was your skull all along lol
>>

 No.464367

File: 1674178773934.jpg (98.56 KB, 1024x976, Moving.jpg)

I'm honestly ignorant about these phenomenon, so if someone wants to explain or guide me towards resources to better understand them, I'd be glad to take a look.
>>

 No.464372

>>464367
Gentrification is when wealthy people come to town and jack up the cost of living for everyone else due to real estate speculation. Most white people aren't wealthy. White flight is when working-class whites with enough financial assets to relocate leave an area that is being deindustrialized by capitalists who have abandoned the area to seek cheaper labor elsewhere.
>>

 No.464780

How does the shortcomings in Engel's analysis of indigenous civilizations(including outdated ideas on how "savage" these populations were, along with other outdated ideas on measuring their intelligence) affect how we should view his further findings today?

Unique IPs: 126

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]