/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Because eugenics is the ruling idea. If you go to actually existing people who struggle, they recognize eugenics and its plan as the threat, and point to its institutions as the problem, rather than an abstraction of capitalism that exists in the mind of middle class LARPers. Capitalism today is only defended on eugenic grounds. The ruling institutions and talking heads talk about nothing but eugenics at this point and throw it in our faces. If you did want to fight the ruling class, you would recognize eugenics as their chief idea, and most people who are at all oppositional have no problem doing this. It's those who are very, VERY quick to defend eugenics that should be suspect, and guess which assholes are promoted and are always there to derail. They'll derail anything oppositional to the ruling interest, and that has been the function of the left for much of its history. The objective of the most capable of the left was always to capture this interest, not destroy it and build something different. They didn't have a genuine program for something different, and when asked to present one, the left was always unwilling to commit to anything, like any shrewd politician. They know how this shit works and how letting the little people have what they want would be politically impossible.

If you did want to organize anything at all, it would entail the working class developing its own institutions, not having institutions provided to them by thought leaders. The left became the party of the institutions, following Gramsci's adage to march through them. It's the institutions that are the problem for most people, but the leadership of the left were always eugenic at heart. That's why the world turned out the way it did. Their intellectual leadership were more than happy to sell us rabble down the river.

>>466813
I feel you schizobro, but I tend to think of it in technocratic terms.

Actual eugenics would entail the intergenerational strengthening of the populace. The technocratic elite, on the other hand, seeks the make the masses weak before the culling.

>>466814
"Actual eugenics" is what Galton prescribed. If you wanted to actually improve people, you wouldn't use any of the strategies Galton or the German eugenists wanted, which casts doubt on the entire process. So far as there is selective breeding of the sort you describe, it is conducted in secret, and the chief practitioners of that selection are - wait for it - the technocrats who know exactly what they want and what side of the war they're on. They're more than happy to have the rabble and the Hitlerian screamers kill each other while they take over the world and make everyone their mind controlled slaves. It's a giant trap and game and those in the know are laughing at you for enabling it.

Eugenics was always a political project, in any form it took, including this secretive mating which has always been about in-group selection more than any noticeable hereditary trait. If you wanted to improve the capabilities of human beings and their potential, there are far more effective things you could do than obsess over who the best mates are. Humans are humans though, and they always think about their pleasure from the orgies if they're in that class that has access to them. Anyone who is honest is a simp and a fool for encouraging it, and that has encouraged the technological stagnation that was desired by the ruling interest.

That's what gets me - that eugenics was so nakedly a political coup and anyone believing they're actually making people smarter has to take a good look at the brain trust ruling us at the moment. Eugenics cannot fail in their eyes, it can only be failed. It is precisely Galton's ideology that has made the aristocracy of today so fucking pathetic - just like Galton himself is a fucking pervert. If you didn't have that ideology, a technocrat would probably choose selectively who lives and who dies based purely on loyalty to their program, rather than any eugenic quality. Eugenics is a useful alliance for depopulation, and that is the only reason such a doctrine was advanced. If someone were interested in materially changing humans, there are far better methods, and you would actually ask seriously about heredity instead of making this political myth. If someone were serious about selective breeding, it would be formally institutionalized and you'd be assigned mates by the state or whoever controls it - literally "government issued girlfriends". If you did that though, it would expose that most of humanity was not selected to live in any arrangement of society that has been permitted. The last thing the political leadership wants is the little people to have their day, and that's why eugenics became the ride and die. Without eugenics, the broad masses would have no reason to accept the primacy of money or the latest lies they're told, and once they stopped taking orders from the state and wrestled away independence, they would raid the bunkers of the elite and take revenge - and I mean revenge for a VERY, VERY long time. Humanity probably wouldn't survive it in any recognizable form. That's how pissed the damned of the Earth have been for the past 100 years.

>>466815
Can you define eugenics in 20 words or less

>>466816
Eugenics: A program of social control premised on "race betterment" where moral behaviors around sex and economic utility stratify society.

>>466816
This is the meaningful content of everything Galton and the German eugenists did. There is no fidelity to anything a genetic theory actually said, because the geneticists at the time would say that you can't make the bold claims the eugenists had to make for their project to hold true.

The entire coup was premised on the belief that an expert class of eugenicists could dictate what you are supposed to think now, rather than any sound strategy that would noticeably work. The comparison is made to selective breeding of crops and livestock (which tells you how the eugenists view you), but if you justified selective breeding of dogs by rampant lying and Satanic thrill-seeking, it wouldn't be a very effective strategy for breeding a better dog. It's the mentality of abusive pet owners who want to turn their sadism towards humans. You find a lot of those people running puppy mills.

>>466811
>why not just focus on appealing to actually existing people to unite against the actually existing ruling class?

We have to figure out the formula that defeats the divide and conquer strategy that ruling classes use.

>>466819
You can't stop them from using it. You can only choose not to bite and meet it with counter-force. It's why any idea inimical to eugenics is attacked - nothing about eugenics is ordained by nature or a true historical inevitability. Eugenics has had to lie and manipulate to push every one of its agenda items, because it is so odious that even people doing the work can't say this is good. Only a few sadistic true believers really get into the creed, and force others to say everything is awesome.

The problem of course is that unless you have something substantial, you're not going to counter the preponderance of force available to states today. You could have not let them have this, and people were fighting against the consolidation of machinery and the chief institutions responsible. Nothing outside of the institutions or outside of the total society was allowed to exist, and this was especially true on the left. It's one reason the masses abandoned the left - they saw the left's political leaders sell them out time and time again and treat them with such disdain that whatever willingness they had to accept socialism was destroyed by 1970. Only the desperate kept believing socialism was possible, and time and time again the socialists would prefer their alliance with eugenics over anything the people wanted, always on the spot to enforce the eugenic edicts.
It's actually funny how after WW2, the only people who wanted to fight communism in Europe were the social democrats. The conservative order and bog standard liberals didn't give a shit - they had enough of that rhetoric from the Nazis and saw where it led.

>>466814
>Actual eugenics would entail the intergenerational strengthening of the populace.

not really. they would just put undesirables in death camps : more info : hitler's T4

>>466823
'undesirable' is basically what catholic church was thinking of them

if it was thinking at all

there's no proof that catholics can think

Dolores quis nostrum consectetur. Laboriosam consequatur molestias dignissimos quod expedita deserunt similique. Voluptas tenetur harum ut enim. At repellendus quia illum sed eaque.…

>>466823
Just you faggot

>>466826
cope harder

Currently laughing hard af rn bc OP thought that generic populism is profound and interesting

Talking about people's material conditions is how you appeal to them you dork.

>>466813
>If you did want to organize anything at all, it would entail the working class developing its own institutions

This is a huge question and it is very speculative, we can't be fairly expected know all the details of the future yadda yadda, so consider it a thought exercise. How do you think these institutions would start and how would they develop? Thank you for your time.

>>466813
>Eugenics is the ruling idea.

Men do make their own history but not under a set of self selected circumstances.


Cope, seethe and dial8

>>466846
this is what you fight for manslave

>>466847

He has no answer again

The unmovable force of materialism vs the unstoppable force of idealism.
The battle rages on.

>>466848
so you gonna tell me men are not the most persecuted in this feminist capitalism? men are disposable while women are not
this is the reality we live in

>>466845
When Marx is speaking of class consciousness, he is not referring to a state of mind or some novel idea, like he's saying "wake up sheeple!" Alex Jones style. Consciousness as a class would mean the workers would develop independent means of supplying themselves, and retain that which they already possessed. Communists have always been against the enclosure and the siege of humanity - that's very basic. So at the very least, you resist that, and the worst thing you can do is make the working class miserable in hopes that you'll cajole a revolution. That's what gets people to hate socialists.

The Marxists played an interesting game of substitution and an attempt to build "proletarian culture" which is ignoring the historical aims of the Low and the working class. The workers don't want to become politicians. They want to be rid of that beast once and for all in all of its forms, and they could easily see a group among the working class becoming the new boss. The war against the working class never abated for a minute, but once enough socialists got their place in the institutions, they suddenly stopped caring about class struggle as we saw it and turned it into something else. That's what people were wondering during the 70s and 80s - why the fuck are they praising these institutions that are killing us and telling us to have more of that?

The road where the working class retains indepdence wasn't taken, and is systematically stamped out wherever it still exists. That's the whole point of a technocratic society - the experts tell you what to think. Certain people see the Platonic republic in the future, but it's been here for a century. We're living in the nightmare and it turns out it fucking sucks, as anyone could have predicted.

At this point, I doubt the working class survives as "the working class". They've accepted that they will be sorted into grades of civic worth and will kill each other before suggesting that the society can change. What remains is a bitter struggle of life that is doomed to evenrual failure. Even if the exterminations stop, no one can have a family in a world like this, and that has always been contingent on either the wage fund or walking away from capitalism and somehow surviving. You might be able to get the repo men to stop working if they're being starved out too or if there are not enough of them against the throngs of dispossessed, which is one reason for mass poisoning and the cybernetic infrastructure. You didn't think capitalists wanted you to have streaming to play vidoe games, did you? It's a test to see how much data can be coordinated on a military network, and the propaganda effects are only worth so much.

The only way out is a desperate campaign of survival, and all we have to fight for is pure spite. More and more, people will choose simple suicide. They've had enough and no one is suggesting any other world is possible, except the truly desperate who want to find some place to wait it out. Anyone who matters has to be compliant with the ruling ideas if they want to live. Protest too much and you get lumpenized or killed. About the only thing you can do now is poison the plans of the social engineers, in the hope that the future won't be this. That's what I was wondering - why is there not mass refusal? I suppose rejection of COVID shit is a start - mass refusal to comply did bring about the end of the lockdowns. But, this only happened because lockdowns were a strategy for managing the transition and getting the bailout through. The narrative to steer people back into the fold was seeded by the Right when COVID started - the voices calling for resistance are now embracing outright fascism and want to reconcile. I'm seeing this in real time as the voices of "The Resistance" are marching in line with the new fascism now, because ze evul Russians must be defeated. A few are noting that they were had, and I'm seeing the resistance wither away. Internet clampdown struck down a lot of dissent and replaced it with astroturf, so that COVID can be memory holed.

>>466850
So you're saying that at this point, any kind of working class institutions that develop will be based around survival in spite of homelessness, starvation, being barred from employment, and other means of soft killing and eventually normal killing?

Both are necessary but socialists are very clearly lacking the latter. I only point out the need for both because socialists also have awful theory that consistently misdiagnoses problems and provides bourgeois solutions.
Anons here aren't serious, organized or leading any movements anytime soon so all we can do for now is sperg out. At some point we'll have to give up our anonymity.

>>466857
Yes. This is why the call of many socialist organizations was to stave off eviction, because people have been evicted since 2020 began. When they say inflation is killing us, it means exactly that. Acting like this isn't happening now and that you are fighting for some future catastrophe is missing the point. The catastrophe is now, and has been going on, and people have been fighting for decades simply to stay alive, while the comfortable sit in their positions lording over us.

>>466865
Do you think that a retreat from the cities to the countryside followed by a building of new institutions and informal infrastructure for survival there is likely, or an assault of the institutions of the city and retaking of the apartments and other infrastructure there is likely?
Or do you think that most of the american working class is just gonna go over to Desantis fascism? And there's nothing left to do for the doomed, autistic, socialist, lumpen, proles, but to run to the countryside, wilderness, or whatever countries accept refugees and hope the beast gets destroyed like how it did 80 years ago in Germany?

What sort of places do you get your news from, how do you seek it out?

>>466865
No one is saying the externalities of capitalist economics don't exist which is what you don't understand. We are trying to tell you you have the cart before the horse and so your solution is going to be misinformed. If you have one, you have never even explained how you plan to fix eugenics.

>>466872
There has been a noted conflict between the hinterland and city life. The narrative says that the hinterland is doomed, but this is just a narrative. People outside of the cities have varying views of what is going on - either they encourage it because the death primarily hits the cities, or they're fighting because the beast will come for them and they have no great love of their neighbors that are favored. The greatest difficulty for the ruling oligarchy is that they don't have a good way to control the countryside, short of depopulating it, and so that is exactly what development plans called for - emptying the countryside with economic warfare to push people into the cities, while depopulating the cities with "urban renewal". Because the ruling interest has to do both of these simultaneously - one feeds off the other - it creates a potential weakness. That's why there is a lot of pandering to country folk, something the fascists love to signal. It really depends on how long the fascist narrative and its projection of force can work, and keeping the desperate in the cities pitted against the desperate in the country. It's one reason racism is played up in the city/country divide in America, because it's the black and native peoples who have been fucked over first, and the overwhelming message to rural whites is to sit down and let it happen, with the old hoodwink to convince them that they're invited into something. Of course, they're not, and this doesn't really convince anyone, but as long as enough tension is played up, the cities become a death trap and the country is put under siege. The lockdown got the cities, but in the country, lockdowns couldn't be reliably enforced without comprodors. You saw some really harsh restrictions imposed on the Indian reservations and poor ruralites by alien imposition, just to ensure the long-run plan of the lockdowns and what will happen with the climate shit.

One other thing is that the working class by and large don't vote or have nothing to vote for. They're voting strictly for whatever they believe is good for their job and future employment. If you're voting for a narrative or a meme, you're a fucking idiot. The memes are more useful to reinforce something once your decision is made, and create an echo chamber that constrains any popular resistance from outside of the system. Trump was very obviously the plan and continues to be the plan - they're going to make Trump a thing again in 2024, because he was uniquely useful as a showman.

Long term, the ruling interest holds everything that is actually valuable. You're not going to be able to fight them from the country with some rifles. You can hamper them, but gun control is primarily intended to disarm the urbanites, which has been tacitly accepted because they hate nigras with guns. The people who would be motivated to violently resist are marked down and delegitimized, and are specifically barred from owning guns with the approval of the gun lobby. That's what the gun control "debate" in America is structured to do - disarm "those people" and any other perceived undesirable, and elevate the culture war to what it is today, with threats of civil war over manufactured bullshit. The ideal for the ruling interest is a fake civil war in which those selected to die are killed by brainwashed thugs. It is most important to resist that call as much as possible, and counter those who would escalate the death cult. It's not easy, but the reach of these narratives is less than you would think. Not everyone is extremely online, and most people figured out the internet is a lost cause.

Ultimately though, the rulers and the plan in motion will win. Nothing significant is resisting it; the only thing they want now is to rally the faithful who are selected to live or believe they are, and isolate the purge targets. That's how fascism rolls, and this time it is worldwide. They're confident enough that they will take their sweet time, so long as nothing can grow. The protracted people's war is operating in reverse - the siege has been going on for quite some time, and the lockdowns are just the start. They seeded the idea that the experts can declare an emergency over a non-emergency and proved what they could get away with during COVID. I've heard of climate lockdowns, and this likely comes after the Ukraine war becomes a deeper quagmire.

As for where I get news from - anything I read, I don't trust without processing it through my filters and referencing things I know. That's how it always works in reality. If you incredulously believe any news source is authoritative, you are not doing history or society or politics right at all. Never believe anything in politics or society until it has been officially denied. Especially don't believe shite like Grayzone that is so obviously an intel cut-out that you have to be in a pure echo chamber to not see it. The point of Grayzone isn't to argue reason, but to jump in front of genuine news and shittify the content so that the plebs receive the same few boilerplate copypastas. I saw enough of the sameiness to tell that the Grayzone people really believe their audience is stupid, and so long as they kick up enough dust to cover up any real information, the strategy works. They started deploying that in 2008, with the Obama campaign being the test case. I'm old enough to remember that.

>>466873
No, you don't understand and refuse to for pathological reasons. The rulers made it clear their ultimate goal is a eugenic society. They're not actually convinced that markets are made of magic or capitalism is a perpetual money making game. They've always known capitalism is a scam, reliant on plunder to continue. How do you plunder to create a caste society? You teach the values of eugenics, which come to dominate over the prior interests of the capitalist. The capitalists that matter long ago pooled their wealth and decided they won. It's socialism for the rich and death for everyone else. None of the financial sector points to anything real - it is purely a tool to push people into doing things they don't want to do, a clever accounting scheme for human misery. The rich just print themselves however much money they want, because inflation is always directed at poor people. Rich people do not care about inflation, because if they're really rich, they own the bank and own the actually useful land and things others have to use money to command. To believe your version of events, you have to fetishize money while claiming you're against it. You refuse to see what has been shouted at full volume since 1970 - the rulers do not need nor want capitalism or the profit motive. This derail gets fucking old, and any actual communist figured this shit out. They don't need me to say this. The derailers are always stooges of the ruling interest and never actually qualify their claims. They always bullbait and cajole, because their argument is alien. Certain people believe they're in the in-group, but their behavior suggests to me they really are retarded enough to believe anything.

>>466873
Also cute that you think this is purely about some policy you can write down to change reality. Eugenics has gone on for too long, being the ruling idea for a little over a century. It infects everything we do, so much that retards like you carry it along without thinking. There's no "fixing" that with some policy changes. It sounds like people who think they can fix liberalism with some voting reforms that are obtuse and entirely alien to why the republican system doesn't fucking work and never actually worked. America ceased to be functionally a republic since 1933, and the last vestiges of it were stamped out in 1969.

>>466876
I suppose I should qualify it by saying that the myths of the republic are still (barely) alive, but even those have been replaced with an alternate set of myths particular to neoliberalism and the neofascist idea that has been advanced. Tyranny, fear, cruelty for its own sake, and the like are advanced as if they were the core republican values, and in a twisted sense, that is what the republic always was. It's not what we would consider a functional republic or a republic that anyone would actually want, but that is the endgame of that form of government. It always winds up becoming the oligarchy it always is at heart, and the lie wears thin. The game is always to keep the lie going for as long as you can fake it, but the modern republics figured out you can just keep lying beyond the normal expiry of the government, and make the lie more real than anything else. This is all stuff stated more or less explicitly in Public Opinion (1922) by the way. If people had a choice in the matter though, they would not agree to anything that has happened since 1970 at all, and at the heights of the political and industrial system, there is no expectation that they are beholden to any vote or public support in a serious way. The people only need to be afraid and poisoned so they keep killing each other, and when they weren't getting enough death rate, they found ways to force drugs into large numbers of people and get a part of the populace wildly enthusiastic for this control over the "bad people".

>>466872
>And there's nothing left to do for the doomed, autistic, socialist, lumpen, proles, but to run to the countryside, wilderness, or whatever countries accept refugees
No countries want larping fag neets

>>466878
I hope you get that the people in charge see most of humanity as superfluous. They've said this multiple times - the "golden billion" or 500 million, depending on what they feel like saying today. The point isn't that they actually believe that is a suitable number of humans, but that they picked a sufficiently low number to make clear the need of a general purge. It also happens to be roughly the population of the world around 1800, and they obsess over "turning back the clock" and bemoan that anything changed from their imagined perfect past. It's the typical fascist package, only said by progressive liberals and given the veneer of being "left". It's really insidious what they've done.

As for OP (again), if you want to do practical things, figure out what people need to defend themselves against this shit that has been coming for us, and stop acting like the ruling institutions haven't been working their best to kill us for 50+ years. The worst thing you can do is tell people the devil doesn't exist, and most people know well what this is. What they would like is a way to stop it, not a way to pretend or fake. They get enough advice on how to fake and cope, and so with those who aren't clued in on just how bad it is, you have to work with the things they do sense that are very, very wrong, and be aware of the many false solutions that are put in front of them. The fake "new Marxism" promoted on leftypol is one such impostor. Studying Marx with genuine interest is actually very useful, if someone is aware of the failings of the Marxist system, and a lot of people with poli sci education will be familiar with Marx. It's actually pretty well known there.

>>466875
>Capitalism is just a tool to push people into things they do not want to do

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHhhhHHHHHHhHHHHHhHHh

Holy shit my fucking sides. You have got to be one of the biggest psuedo-intellectual morons to ever grace leftypol history. I swear to God what a massive load of bullshit. Even the most die hard lolbert understands that capitalism as an economic system is about profit. The entire system would not function if it was about anything else. It has been that way since mercantilism. You are so fucking stupid.

How long are we going to go in these circles for eugenics moron? Capitalism is a mode of production that has existed arguably since feudalism but really got it's start in the industrial revolution. The reason understand profits as the central force of the economy (again like gravity) is that it gives us a way to answer the problem of capitalism.

You on the other hand have no answer because you are just some psuedo-intellectual morons prattling on about idealistic bullshit like eugenics to huff your own farts on a public image board, but, as Marx said philosophers up to this point have only interpret the world in various ways. The point however is to change it.

See you know in the back of your head that your infinite skitzo walls of text there is not actual answer because even if the ruling class and ruling elites say on thing from the front of their mouth (still being influenced by the ideology of capitalism after all) That simply killing them is not going to solve the issue.

You can kill everyone on the ruling class right now and they will just get replaced by some other psychopaths who will push the same shit about eugenics. Because the problem isn't fundamentally about power or about eugenics because the issue fundamentally is about the fundamental mechanism that drive capitalism as a force that allows psychos to get into positions of power in the first place. You're to stupid to hate the game so you hate the player.

It's just like a poltards idealistic hating and blaming Jews. A pointless endeavor.

>>466885
Eugene is genuinely mentally ill. It's best just to find every post with "Satanic" or "eugenics" in it and ignore them.

>>466891
mental illness is a pretty idealistic narrative too. I am not using that as a pejorative against you, but, I dunno. I think the DSA has fucking thrown everything under the sun in the book and called it a mental disorder when most of it is just capitalist alienation, but, eugenics kun really pushes it for me. There's no one some one can be this invested in something as mystical as eugenics. It has to be some type of pathology, you might be right.

>>466885
You're a fucking idiot. I can't even with you.

>>466875
>Especially don't believe shite like Grayzone
possibly Glow-posting

The Grayzone actually does pretty decent journalism, they even got a """disinformation""" badge of honor from the consent manufacturing machine.

>>466900
fuck your gayzone

>>466875
>The protracted people's war is operating in reverse
Isn't the protracted people's war sort of just a more developed version of the ancient Roman Fabian strategy operating in reverse in the first place? I don't mean to nitpick a seemingly irrelevant historical point, but I'm interested in the history of these kinds of strategies and how they manage to project political force socially and kinetically, I think that contemplation of the social relations that make up these conflicts might be able to reveal a path that can lead us out of our prison, might reveal crucial weaknesses that even those with little resources could hammer on to sabotage the whole plan and provide humanity an opportunity to free itself. I'm probably too hopeful, I know, but I'll keep searching till the end, that's the meaning of struggling to live in the face of overwhelming odds, something us living things excel at and frequently seemingly miraculously succeed at. Have you heard of the neutral theory of evolution?

>>466885
Is a "mode of production" irreducible? Or is it made up of real social relations, technologies, etc? And can those things that make it up change over time with the political goals of classes that are subjects of the "mode of production"? With those rhetorical questions you should have answered no, yes, and yes to out of the way, I'd like to ask some more vague and genuine questions.
What of the massive increase in surveillance, psychiatry since the 70s? Just capitalism as usual? Or were these industries and institutions rooted in eugenic praxis and theory, just as the industries and institutions of mercantilism were rooted in liberal praxis and theory?

>>466900
If I were born yesterday and didn't even understand really basic tricks that ordinarily only work on children like reverse psychology I would take your post at face value and believe the insinuations you made in it.

>>466906
>>466906
A mode of production is based on social reltations that exis around the means of production in a particular historical epoch at a particular time. As long as the relations of production exist in a market economy based on wage labor and profit under privately owned forces of production then it is capitalism. I do not see why this is so hard to understand or why other leftists refuse to accept this very nuanced and concrete definition? Is it because more liberal leaning socialists identify this as well but come to different conclusions on how to "fix" it? Tell me, seriously because I am sick of telling you rejects this fact.

>questions.
What of the massive increase in surveillance, psychiatry since the 70s? Just capitalism as usual?

Yes

>Or were these industries and institutions rooted in eugenic praxis and theory, just as the industries and institutions of mercantilism were rooted in liberal praxis and theory?


No


The ideals people hold have no real influence on the mode of production I am sorry to tell you that.

>>466906
There's a reason the British Fabians chose their name and the coat of arms of a wolf in sheep's clothing. Eugenics saw itself as waging a war or "Jehad", and you can read that straight out of Galton to see that they were raring for a fight, and conducted exactly that.

The other guy is an idiot. It's people like that who are very useful idiots. It's a familiar form of cowardice and I know what these people think - they really are that stupid, but have been told they're smart for being compliant followers. It's sad that these people do that. He's been informed many times over of his errors but he doubles down on stupidity, for the stupidest cause. Once they're defending eugenics, they'll invent every excuse not to see something that is obvious to a lot of people who think about this society at all. That's how eugenics operates. The root of it is pure mystification.

>>466911
You are a lying, pretentious, pseudo intellectual faggot and you need to kill yourself.

>>466909
>you rejects
What does this mean exactly? Rejected by who? You? You wound me.

I don't disagree that that is the definition of a mode of production and never claimed that wasn't the definition. It's relevance or usefulness as a category remains to be determined. And thank you for qualifying your statement.

Marxism is not synonymous with materialism and anything not-marxism is not synonymous with idealism. I would very much like the end of class society and markets and think that bringing about the end of those would be essential to the freeing of humanity, and think the abolition of private property is probably a good way to go about it. But it's clear to me that perhaps something like say the "mode of repression" is much more important to understanding class society than the mode of production, and perhaps holds more potential for important materialist analysis of history and the world as it exists today, and that through this analysis new, more important categories could be defined. Perhaps through these hypothetical categories we could find things to abolish alongside or before private property so that class society actually gets abolished instead of surviving like it has every time so far.

What to you elevates the importance of the mode of production over other ways of describing the ways social relations sustain and reproduce class society?

>>466911
It certainly is a fight, and they have means of isolating us and outnumbering us small group by small group at a time, even though their eventual targets outnumber them significantly.
It seems like this shouldn't be happening, but there's something sick inside much of humanity that tempts them, and something violent that threatens them that make them willing to let the scapegoats be killed in front of them, even when they will eventually be next. And something that nullifies the brunt of the attempts to resist this process made by those who resist in spite of the former discouraging factors.

And regarding that other guy, do you claim your focus on eugenics is wholly incompatible with the marxist focus on capitalism? I'm pretty sure you don't, right?

>>466912
You are such a nasty little chihuahua. If you're going to tell poor people to kill themselves you should just tape your fingers together instead so no one has to read your narcissistic tantrums that not everyone agrees with your exact theories, that diversity of thought is allowed to exist and I am not subject to listening to mystifing trite broken records all day, I would just go to ham radio or bars if only nasty infantile douchebags like you were online.

>>466913
>>466913

It means that you are rejected by anyone with a brain:

So you basically have all the same answers to these issues that proper marxists who do not believe in idealism, yes, idealism such as eugenics.So the argument is completely pointless other than merely as an exercise in futility and I guess honing our rhetorical ability;
I don't know how many times it has to be explained to you that you have the cart before the horse and that is why you are concocting cockamamie ideas like "mode of repression" that make no sense, or, don't even matter in the sightest because you failed (or out right refuse) to accept the fact that the material state and historical state of the economy and society is what develops the moder Zietgiest and ideology of sed society which is why all this babling about eugenics is pointless because you are just diverting people away from focusing on what matters to actually solving capitalism and externalities created by it like eugenics which is to alter the mode of production by taking control of the economy and history through democratic and economic planning.

>You are such a nasty little chihuahua.

Stop saying stupid shit and actually start giving answers to the shit people ask you and maybe you would get called a faggot a lot less, you know that? Up until this point every time I brought up a question; a reasonable question you just doubled down and called me a faggot but when I call you a faggot and tell you to KYS you start crying like a bitch.
Get the fuck over yourself you narcissistic homosexual.

>>466911
Also I cannot stress this enough how much of a liar you are because every single question and post I postulated towards you is public on this board for all to see. Every single time you could not and out right refused to entertain any question I threw your way is all public and you have the gall to call me a useful idiot with out an original thought? That's extremely rich considering you cling to your idealistic dogmatism about eugenics like a religious fanatic inspite of all logic and reason pointing towards a more reasonable understanding of the world.

Seriously, you have zero self awareness and are suffering from Dunning Kruger effect and open projecting at this point.

>>466913
He got beat by his Lord and Master Eugene the Great, and he's coping with maximum autism. The claims are so ridiculous that a child could see through them, but they only need to insinuate that they can say bald faced lies to make anything into anything. This is a science of theirs by the way.

You're also right in sensing the logical positivism calling itself "dialectical materialism". The hilarious thing is that the reputation of the Marxists was something like "left-wing conspiracy nut" and remained so for a long time. Conspiratorial thought was more associated with the left than the right historically - it was the right that historically claimed the institutions could not be questioned.

It's also funny because if this guy had any self-awareness and awareness of the shit coming out of his hands, his statements are typically idealist takes on the world. A materialist approach is always favorable to analysis and doesn't force a grand narrative on top of what your eyes and reason would tell you is in front of you. If you are to speak of society scientifically, you are speaking of something which can be analyzed, not something you reduce to a grand narrative where if something doesn't fit the theory, your senses must be corrected. That is standard High Idealism and a religious take. Marx himself described his approach as "the ruthless criticism of all that exists", and while this is taken overboard to mean things it didn't mean and you can doubt Marx's method, Marx didn't abandon analysis or say anything can be anything. One of the things you can take away from Marx is that he's showing the thought process of those in the ruling class, which is something very different from the thought of simple folk who didn't want to take part in politics. The rulers have mentioned their thought in the past, but state it as a fait accompli and say the stupidest shit (just read virgin Kant and creepoid Hegel for some hot takes).

Anyway "mode of production" is not a simplistic idea or a "system", but a combination of various things that are conflated to describe an overall situation. There is always some situation that can be described as a whole, and this exists because there is a general fear and some standard in society of what behaviors are normal and successful in competition. Feudalism was not defined because the lord or the serf actually was attached to the land in a spiritual or moral sense, but because claims to land and serfs were the important political unit of the day. And so, capitaism as a situation arises when the mercantile interest can assert much more force over worldly affairs, and the monied interest doesn't have any regard for feudal privileges at first nor sees it as a thing that it should preserve. The liberals were pretty clear about fashioning a new aristocracy if you understand their thinking.

>And regarding that other guy, do you claim your focus on eugenics is wholly incompatible with the marxist focus on capitalism? I'm pretty sure you don't, right?
You can regard capitalism as a historical reality and Marx's writing was a critique of political economy in that time. It doesn't "disprove Marx", like Marx was describing an eternal steady state that must never change. Someone approaching Marx with basic sense would see past his infantilism, but the stupid rot only needs to insinuate itself enough.
You can describe capitalism, and Marx wasn't solely focused on capitalism like it was literally Satan. Capitalism was the situation recognized at the time, and one of the observations was that capitalism would become a different thing as society progressed and technology changed the situation. That was understood by the rise of industry, then electricity, and so much else that was novel. But, I'm just not a Marxist, so what Marx wrote isn't some theological point to me. I don't base my whole world-view on a grand narrative about what some other guy wrote. That's guru-seeking and I hate it. Certain people latch onto Marxism as a quasi-religion or a get-rich quick scheme - it's endemic to the left generally that it's a giant grift. I do think Marx is saying something very relevant and that still stands, and you can't really get what happened in the 20th century without understanding what Marx was writing about. You might have figured sources other than Marx can tell you the same things, and Marx is not the only person writing at this time, but he is among the writers of the period and became quite famous. This way of putting Marx at the center of all things is really a reproduction of fascist conceits about Marx. Pre-Lenin, Marx was actually on the margins of socialism overall, and the victory of the Bolsheviks is what really established Marxism as we know it today and the form it took in Marxism-Leninism. The Marxists themselves were aware of what they were, and this political cultism came after 1914 when shit got really dire. I imagine CIA figured out how to turn communism into something so alien an unpalatable, and fuse it with their projects to create new mystery cults like the Scientologists.

>>466922
Ah he's learned a new word, Dunning-Kruger.

>>466922
He does the same thing every time you call him out on his bullshit and demand evidence: dodges the question and prevaricates with walls of text.

>>466926
He also likes to pose as people who agree with him when it's obviously the same fucked by retarded faggot.

>>466936
Fucking*

>>466921
Idealism is a system of philosophical thought that imposes ideology onto analysis of reality. Discussing how the ideas of various groups have shaped their praxis and the events of history is not idealist.

I'm not the guy who you encouraged to commit suicide for disagreeing with you by the way, you seem confused. You also make my stomach turn like the sight of an open wound or a collapsed, unresponsive loved one.

You have weird typing tics like replying twice, strange use of red text, that make me think you have serious psychological issues, something like OCD maybe, which is a life destroying and isolating mental illness that's torture to live with and I don't say it to mock you but because I see in you a fellow beaten down comrade stricken by a horrific illness and a tyrannical and harrowing situation.
I hope you grow something in a community garden this year, the smell of dirt is pleasant and can heal deep wounds.

I never explained my hypothetical idea so you don't know whether it's cockamamie, this is your pathological dogmatism showing again, the tyrant in your heart that I believe can be drowned in simple dirt. The tyrant that came from outside you, and was internalized through torture.

And I don't like all this talk of horses and carts, I don't like innuendo, innuendo is a linguistic style that tiptoes around responsibility and the specifics of a situation far too warily for my taste. Innuendo is a style of speech that has something to hide, it compartmentalizes like a gangster or spy, not so much to avoid detection but to assist in making the outcome of a legal battle favorable for the offender, to avoid anything being proved, to get a verdict of not guilty.

I think people do things, and that systems don't exist above and removed from them, but are extensions of their will, subordinate to their will or collective wills.
I think you have the ideology of learned helplessness with a garish marxish coat of paint over it.

It's hard to think about you, you're a strange person.

>>466925
I think you should read some kind of a dialogue heavy fiction book so you can develop enough reading comprehension to follow a slightly complicated discussion without jumping to the conclusion that the people involved in the conversation are "schizos" because hurr thinking something more longer and complex than a tweet is "schizo".
Read a page once a week, that's all you should hold yourself to, but read more if you feel like it, eventually you'll be ready and then you'll start to soar through the pages of your own desire.

>>466994
>more longer
I should have proofread longer…
please disregard that error I wrote one thing before writing another and didn't fully delete the first things I wrote.

>>466994
I don't think that psychoanalysis is helpful. I just think he's the victim of ignorance and echo chambers and a society with atrocious values. He could stop being ignorant and make a few connections to eliminate the most obvious errors, but that is not easy when certain ideas not only run deep but are reproduced in society to reinforce failure.

With the really bad psych cases, the problem will not be resolved by any amount of "internal struggle". Therapy is a torture session - that's what it was designed for, to interrogate suspected criminals. If you wanted to help someone, you wouldn't make them destroy themselves and talk to space aliens. You would speak of things that are practical and real and you wouldn't act as if society is total and inescapable. That's what you would do to slaves, and most people in the therapist's office are slaves. The only values taught in therapy are how to kick someone else down to get ahead, and it's not surprising that the only successes in therapy come from embracing the total war against the weak. They basically tell people they can be "saved" if they hate the correct people, the Bad People. It's a sick cycle. I don't have that option, not that I would take it because I would not have anything to gain and nothing they say can be trusted, and they want me dead anyway.

I do think he suffers from some severe moral cowardice, which is common among his type, and that is not a thing you can fix by teaching the right ideas or conditioning someone to be good. In a society like this, though, moral cowardice is the dominant value, because brazen amorality is considered the height of ethics, and the only ideas of morality are tied to eugenics. If that is "help", insanity becomes normal, but there are no standards for comparison. It's why the institutions go out of their way to deny that there can be any fixed standards or consistency, and the law is written so that for the underclass, Oceania has no law. This is only going to be worse in the future, and all pretenses of the old law are disintegrating. With it goes all of the illusions that a democratic society is at all possible.

That said, there are things someone can do that are very obviously better for them, like not supplicating to this eugenicist death cult and not running away in fear from the name. It's the absolute terror and fear that perpetuates eugenics more than anything else. Decent people see what a fucking disgusting joke it is, because the "true believers" are so nakedly power-hungry and sadistic that no one would trust them with any power by agreement. No one would want to vote for the insane probation officer throwing a man off of life support and gloating when said man dies or is maimed for life. That's the world for us, and perfectly normal in the institutions, but anyone can see that if it happens to someone basically because it can and the thrill of torture is the ruling idea, it will attack the civilian populace in short order. That is exactly what happened with COVID - the people to die are not just the designated residuum, but the honest who were trying to keep their head down or who were fool enough to believe this can have a happy ending. We got a rude awakening of just who was selected to live, and the elevation of Nazis in America is a calculated strategy. They're going to win that way by killing the relatively honest liberal types with vaccine after vaccine, and brag about making them do it while they and their MAGA and fascist friends conspire with each other. That's how Germans always think. What a filthy race.

>>466994
>>467001
Tfw autism shares its coke with schizophrenia