[ 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   Mumble   Telegram   Discord


File: 1678650145933.jpg ( 144 KB , 1148x1630 , boringdystopia-11p4vhm.jpg )

 No.467069[Last 50 Posts]

Realistically how do you reconcile lack of gun control in the school shooter era?
These kind of incidents can't go one forever without some kind of push back. Can gun rights preserved without having to live with school shootings?
>>

 No.467071

>>467069
Marx said that the organized proletariat should be armed, he didn't say give teenagers guns to shoot up schools.

In Belarus for example most households have one or more Kalashnikov-AK47s, but they lock that shit up and don't let their kids play with it, they don't have a problem with school shootings.
>>

 No.467072

>>467071
The Uvalde shooting was done by legally obtained guns. As well as a ton of other mass shootings.
>>

 No.467078

File: 1678681995019.jpg ( 16.64 KB , 256x197 , 082d546b724289d86d5ed4a0e5….jpg )

>>

 No.467080

File: 1678682951800.pdf ( 3.98 MB , 232x300 , usss-ntac-maps-2016-2020.pdf )

It's convenient to say that they are just some mentally ill people who will try to hurt others are always going to exist, but even psychopaths can be kept anchored from finding an anti-social outlet through stable, healthy living conditions and a loving family. The US Secret Service admitted in a recent study that the majority of mass shootings happen following a major financial or housing crisis for the perpetrator:
<While nearly three-quarters (n = 130, 72%) of the attackers experienced a financial stressor sometime prior to their attack, over half (n = 100, 56%) did so within five years. These financial stressors, which occurred across life domains, included an inability to sustain employment, loss of civil judgments, bankruptcies, evictions, foreclosures, and losses of income. For some, the financial stressor was experienced by family members whose financial stability affected the attacker directly.
<Over one-third of the attackers (n = 70, 39%) had experienced unstable housing within 20 years of their attacks. This included those who had experienced homelessness at some point, as well as those who had faced foreclosure proceedings, had an impending eviction, or had stayed in temporary housing after being kicked out by family or romantic partners. Of the 31 attackers (17%) who were experiencing these tenuous situations at the time of the attack, 22 of them were homeless, including 3 who targeted other members of the homeless population in their attacks.

Remove the potential for situations where people have nothing left to lose and most of the mass shootings will stop. Just as Aristotle said, poverty is the parent of revolution and crime. The lethality of the weapon used to perpetrate that crime is only tangential.
>>

 No.467082

>he fell for the glowie psyop
Do a little critical thinking for a second. do you think a country with three guns per citizen would just have mass shootings where… nothing is really even achieved?
>yeah bro lemme just go shoot up this subway because I’m so fucking unhinged
>>

 No.467085

File: 1678702454125.jpg ( 85.41 KB , 828x662 , IMG_20230313_171322_922.jpg )

>>

 No.467117

>>467078
This is cute and all but kids getting executing is still going pull more heartstrings than a genocide that most Americans don't even know happened.
>>

 No.467118

>>467080
I agree but you still can't deny that simply banning at least ARs wouldn't be a more direct and efficient solution. Its not like ARs have even been available for all that long, only since what, the 2000s?
I don't want to see ARs banned but you cannot deny the power of the imagery of slaughtered kids to move the public either.
Ironically it's only been the recalcitrance of the GOP that's keep any serious gun laws from being passed. And they want guns to maintain capitalism and settler colonialism.
>>

 No.467119

>>467078
It's ironic that you post that because Manifest Destiny and the resulting Native genocide was only possible with the second amendment.
No way could settlers have maintained their private property without firearms. Really the government was peripheral in Manifest Destiny. It was the thousand of armed settlers that made it happen.
That's another thing the left needs to reconcile when reflexively defending the second amendment. That the right is almost entirely exercised by capitalist and settlers maintaining the system, and any and all attempts by the left to arm themselves have been twarted. In other words on a material level, leftists that defend the second amendment are really only defending capitalists' right to bear arms.
>>

 No.467121

>>467119
>Fart sniffing
>>

 No.467127

>>467119
The early United States having an army was only possible with the second amendment. That's how the army constituted itself - a small officer corps that received commissions basically by knowing the right people and the buddy system, and then they find whatever young men want to kill an Indian and take his shit. The permanent imperial army of the national security state wasn't a thing.

If the gun was about fighting tyrants, that failed a long time ago. Of course, the net effect of gun control is to disarm selected populations. Warrior aristocracies are not concerned about the people holding guns, so long as those guns are never directed towards genuinely rebellious aims, and the army has artillery and everything it needs to besiege the people. Everything about the national security state was in preparation for a permanent siege of humanity and the elimination of the residuum, rather than any legitimate purpose for the army.

Anyone who looks like they would amount to an oppositional force has been disarmed and is marked down. The people passionate about gun control usually are the people who want some petty-managerial privilege over the residuum rather than any legitimate concern about gun violence. It has long been understood in the city that taking away guns doesn't stop much, but part of inner-city life is the intercine struggle for life which pits all against all. The winners of that arrangement can select who should and shouldn't be in jail, then proceed to make it so by insinuating it endlessly - as long as it's not them. You talk to a lot of the better off black people and they'll say proudly some uyghas just need to go to jail, and it won't be them. For those who are genuinely oppressed, a gun isn't going to change their situation if they are marked down and constrained before shots are fired. You would have had to prevent that network of intelligence from forming, or form counter-networks that can be relatively free from the taint of imperial influence. Those who truly oppose the ruling system do not get far, unless they choose to retire from public life and find whatever they can in this cursed world. Anyone trying to capture the state from that position is hopeless and clearly unaware of what they signed away by allowing the mere existence of the national security state.
>>

 No.467128

>>467119
One way of looking at it is:
<The genocide happened because the colonials had too much firepower.

Another way of looking at this is saying:
<the Native Americans didn't have enough firepower.

The second one is about empowerment, and often that's one step too far. Going along with a moral value that it's wrong to mass murder a bunch of people that's easy. But making those people powerful enough that they can't be victimized or coerced anymore. That's an uncomfortable loss of control, and it means that those people might do something that's really unacceptable (relatively speaking), and then it would have to be accepted anyway because there is no power to override their volition.
>>

 No.467131

>>467127
>The people passionate about gun control usually are the people who want some petty-managerial privilege over the residuum rather than any legitimate concern about gun violence.
So the millions of families that send their children to public school and have to live with this new horror are now all latte sipping liberals that are too good to own their own firearms and are just toadies of the state.
My how the left has fallen. Do you not understand the type of family that sends their children to public school kek.
>>467128
You're inadvertently proving my point. The 2nd amendment has never been used to arm exploited populations.

Looks like there's no actual leftists in this thread. Everyone here is only interested in "owning the libs" and moral preening. I'm sure that feels good but your memes and witty barbs are going to fall flat during the next mass school shooting.
>>

 No.467132

>>467131
Your whole argument is purely an appeal to emotion lol
>>

 No.467133

>>467118
>muh settler colonialism
who is being settled and colonized in the US right now? wtf are you talking about?

>>467131
This is such a non-argument. The second amendment was used by Black Panthers and is the reason why California has such restrictions on gun ownership now - exploited populations were using the 2A!

Even if they were not you'd have to be an idiot to think that the working class being disarmed is good actually.
>>

 No.467134

>>467133
>who is being settled and colonized in the US right now?
Slavery is still legal in the US. And all the settler holdings are still maintained by the American state. Settler colonialism is continual process that provides original capital for capitalism.
>>467132
I already made my case in my OP and other posts. Of which none of you engaged with, because you don't have anything.
You think "owning the libs" on a Mongolian cricket racing forum is some kind of win but the public that is worried about this real life problem is not going to understand your "epic memes" much less be persuaded by them.
>>

 No.467135

File: 1678748117214.jpg ( 19.75 KB , 326x352 , what.jpg )

>>467134
>And all the settler holdings are still maintained by the American state.
This sounds like unhinged schizoid drivel but I'm curious to hear you justify it with examples.
>>

 No.467136

>>467133
>This is such a non-argument. The second amendment was used by Black Panthers and is the reason why California has such restrictions on gun ownership now - exploited populations were using the 2A!
Why do you keep proving my point for me. I said before, any attempt by anyone with revolutionary potential to arm themselves has been stopped.
The Panthers are infamously no more. If any other left wing, or hell even liberal progressive group, attempted the same at any sort of significant scale, would meet the same fate.
The right wing, who you slavishly run cover for, is not protecting the right to bare arms for you, or anyone with socialist sympathies. Yet you childishly pillory anyone that points this obvious fact out.
>>

 No.467137

>>467135
I guess you're unfamiliar with how the United States was founded. Or why we have Native American reservations.
It's really not surprising you're so historically illiterate.
>>

 No.467138

>>467137
Yes and all that stuff happened well over a century ago. You need to point to "settler holdings still maintained by the American state" today if you wish to justify your claim that the US is any sort of settler-colonial society in the contemporary period.
>>

 No.467139

>>467138
It's the entire United States. Colonialism is a process that never ended. As I said before the US state enslaves right now, today, the same people it enslaved and ethnically cleansed a century ago.
I can already tell I'm talking to some recovering /pol/yp that's low key triggered so we can just drop this debate now. It's not what I came to talk about. I came to talk about school shooting and gun control.
>>

 No.467140

>>467139
So you refuse to provide any examples to justify your assertion then?
>>

 No.467141

>>467140
To you, yes.
>>

 No.467142

>>467141
The presumption of unhinged schizoid drivel shall remain standing then.
>>

 No.467143

>>467142
Yup, you won my spooked friend. Can you pack up your butthurt and get out of my thread so I can go back to discussing OP?
>>

 No.467144

>>467143
>my thread
this is public property little booj
>>

 No.467146

File: 1678766591697.jpg ( 41.92 KB , 542x535 , spookbuster.jpg )

>>467143
>can't defend owned argument
>s-s-spooked!
If anyone's spooked here, it's the one so detached from reality that they think they live in 19th century America and everyone around them is still benefiting from the Homestead Act.
>>

 No.467147

>>467144
>OP wants to talk about the subject in the OP.
Well blow me down.
>>

 No.467148

>>467146
My Gawd you go on like a communist Karen.
>>

 No.467149

>>467082
>Muh Q Anon conspiracy theory
The last refuge of a scoundrel.
>>

 No.467150

>>467147
>Op is ghey tho
>>

 No.467153

>>467149
That's right comrade dunning kruger. Real revolutionaries(tm) sit around smoking weed all day while parroting the same positions as your average MSNBC talking head.
>>

 No.467171

>>467153
>I have no arguments and I must scream.
t. midwit
>>

 No.467172

>>467171
There's at least 3 implied arguments in the post you quoted. You're just too dim to pick up on things unless it's spelled out for you.
>Literally like talking to a slow 7 year old.
>>

 No.467211

File: 1678901921518.png ( 22.32 KB , 714x331 , mass shooters 2 out of 4 o….png )

>>467069
>Was Marx wrong about gun control.

No.

Workers need to be armed.
Workers need to organize. Workers need to be ready to clash when it's time to clash. The gov't cannot be trusted disarming the public, and the American workers should be prepared to resist any such attempt by every possible means - even legal representation. Exhaust peaceful means comprehensively, and prepare for war.

I used to admire the UK's system, but now I think that country's rather sad frankly. Make no mistake that they have reduced the amount of mass shootings and gun violence in their country… but more-and-more, their country also just seems like a limp "little America" whose population are even more hopeless than we are, and whose politicians seem dead-set on destroying what few advantages the common Briton had over us backwards Americans.

Now, America's government does awful things. America's government does these awful pointless wars - Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Afghanistan, Iraq. The American gov't did the Patriot Act, America crushed unions, America sells out its publicly funded infrastructure, America scrapped welfare, America let guys like the Sacklers go free after killing so many of us with their murderous scheme, America has this huge surveillance state which runs all these little "experiments" on the public… and as pathetic as Americans have been in resisting these things, this patheticness still does not make me trust the American gov't any more to keep a just peace. They do not need our help hacking away at our liberty, corrupting our democracy (laugh all you want, even socialists used to win elections in America), and stomping on us.

I am not a casualty of school shooting, but I wish I was. If I had been shot dead in kindergarten by some psycho I would never have grown to understand the workings of this country. I would never understand why these hopeless men with downward trajectories go out and do these horrible things. I can sympathize with them on some level, and that is sickening.

American workers need power, and understanding, to deal with their economic predicament and the corruption of their government. Guns are not a substitute for this, but rather a necessary supplement.

>>467072

Most mass shootings in America are committed by legal adults, yeah. In fact, they're usually over 25, and even a disproportionate amount of school shooters specifically are also legal adults.

Idk who needs to hear this, but the mainstream narrative is a crock of shit. To say new 21+ age limits on gun purchases are idiotic is being generous - it's an effort to shift blame to the young, and disarm young people because the present-day NRA is basically a club for reactionary boomers & they're relatively ok with that. The deadliest mass shooting in American history was perpetrated by a 60-something year-old man in Las Vegas. Although I oppose new restrictions on guns now, it's completely true that the NRA has these political faggots in their pocket.

Having a gun ownership cutoff of 18-and-under would, I shit you not, prevent more mass shootings than a 21-and-up limit would.
>>

 No.467213

>>467172
I'm secretly right, you just don't realize it.
I kneel
>>

 No.467224

>>467213
Perhaps
>>

 No.467225

>>467213
This should have been greentexted.
>I'm secretly right, you just don't realize it.
>>

 No.467258

File: 1678937970505.jpeg ( 45.97 KB , 616x680 , FrSNWbtX0AA3E9m.jpeg )

>>

 No.467386

>>467258
this image is fascist libertarian republican neonazi propaganda
>>

 No.467389

>>467386
>The truth is fascist libertarian republican neonazi propaganda
>>

 No.467391

>>467387
4chan.org (invented trumpist neonazism)
socialist rifle association (red fashists)
fortnite (libertarian brainwashing software)
>>467389
>the truth
something you deplorables don't have enough brain cells to grasp
where's your college degree redneck?
>>

 No.467400

>>467258
This only proves that americans is a consumption driven country. One of their countless hobbies consist in collecting guns.
>Argentina
>Southeast Asia
If you consider them secure, I have bad news for you.
>>

 No.467402

>>467400
>Has only ever been in America
>>

 No.467404

>>467258
Still doesn't address the problem of school shooting in particular.
>>

 No.467405

>>467404
Don't you have a DSA meeting to attend to?
>>

 No.467406

>>467405
>My funny quips can counter the image of first graders having their guts splattered all over their schools.
Grow up.
>>

 No.467407

>>467406
>I'm happy to wave around the image of dead children in order to disempower people via a vis an oligarchal state, all while presenting myself as taking the moral high road.
>>

 No.467408

>>467404
>>467406
Ukraine is a lost cause, so the glowniqqers got new talking points
>>

 No.467409

>>467407
>Parents aren't terrified of school shootings now, it's a psyop.
t. childless NEET
>>

 No.467410

>>467408
>I'm going to gossip about my critic instead of rebutting him.
>>

 No.467412

File: 1679093127163.jpg ( 342.32 KB , 1080x1277 , IMG_20230318_054457.jpg )

>>467409
I know. You really couldn't design a better psyop, could you.
>>

 No.467417

File: 1679093782372.webm ( 2.62 MB , 608x1080 , 1677696185689544.webm )

>>467412
>No way could a country sliding toward fascism produce embittered school shooters, it's all a government conspiracy!
>>

 No.467418

>>467417
>America is sliding towards fascism so we have to ban guns
TYT tier
>>

 No.467420

>>467418
>Hey guise I think these school shooting might cause the public to support sweeping forms of gun control.
>S-s-s-shut up, g-g-glowie, p-p-psyop
The "left" everyone
>>

 No.467422

>>

 No.467423

File: 1679094750962.jpg ( 70.54 KB , 1080x343 , IMG_20230318_061144.jpg )

>>467420
I mean, you could just be retarded. This is leftychan, afterall
>>

 No.467424

>give us your guns, we'll protect you
-the people the 2nd amendment is designed to protect against
>>

 No.467426

>>467424
It's not though
>>467423
This was before Uvallde, regardless once there a a shooting with really good footage it'll be game over. Also over 50% is a majority numb nuts.
>>

 No.467427

>>467418
>denying that the US isn't sliding toward fascism
/pol/ tier
>>

 No.467428

>>467427
Liberal tier assertion. Fascism is what you get after a failed revolution against capitalism. Don't want fascism? Get your friends and arm them so the revolution succeeds.
>>

 No.467431

>>467428
nah, don't you know that fascism is when orange man bad and no abortions
>>

 No.467432

>>467428
Extremely based take
>>

 No.467433

>>467426
Martha Speaks did nothing glowuygha keep dreaming that the failed state can pull off another 94 without it blowing up in its face
>>

 No.467462

>>467428
Fascism is a complete capitulation of the state to private interests.
The US elected a literal billionaire who proceeded to dismantle any state services and worker protections he could.
Delete thy self brainlet Leninoid.
>>

 No.467463

>>467462
The US has been a fascist state since the Powell Memorandum and Trilateral Commission then. Or arguably even before that when the cold war was initiated to protect the aerospace industry's profits at the end of WWII. The problem is your definition has no clear delineation between when enough of the state is controlled by private interests to constitute it. The other problem of course is that everyone who has ever called themselves a fascist has meant something different. The one thing they truly have in common is counter-revolutionary violence and oppression and a regime that constitutes itself after a defeated revolution.
>>

 No.467464

>>467463
So like the Bolsheviks?
>>

 No.467470

>>467463
If the idea of fascism is "state ruled by private interests", that defines literally every state ever. States are ruled by men and people who do not have the public good in mind. They don't exist simply to exist, as if they were passive. That is always a pretense of states, and fascism and its philosophical origins exaggerate those pretenses to their maximum.

What really makes fascism unique is why it does so, and the long-term aims of fascist states. It was clear that the Nazis were not merely an aberration or an ad hoc response, but were the plan of the ruling interest moving forward. The idea that nothing changed from the 19th century is a pure mystification, sold by those who want to protect what was created.

"Fascism" implies certain commitments that the US only makes around 2000. The Powell memorandum is a sign of what was interesting in making what happened in 2001 a reality, but up until the Patriot Act, the US is still doing the liberal "democracy" thing and remains a relatively free society. It's a trope in the past 20 years to act as if it was all illusory and we were always fascist, but we weren't. If we were, nothing like civil rights would have been tolerated for a moment, and it would have been the screaming extremes of Reaganism all throughout the 20th century. There has been a pro-Nazi contingent in this country ever since the OGs, and they insinuated themselves in every place they could, but in the main the commitments of the US Government were the preservation of this empire, not some goofy attempt to LARP as Nazis that the neocons fetishize.

What is being built is something quite different from the Nazis, but the Nazis are the inspiration for the eugenics stuff that the ruling interest actually wants. Eventually the petty-manager screamers will be liquidated and you'll see the really dark shit, but that will take some time. If you know some of what they say in secret they have big plans for the country and the world. The Nazi posturing is a transition to something much more thoroughgoing and fully eugenist.
>>

 No.467471

>>467470
I was wondering why this sounded so goofy and off, then I got to the last paragraph
>>

 No.467472

>>467470
>Eventually the petty-manager screamers will be liquidated
I wanna see one if you shit stain tankies define PMC.
>>467463
>I can't understand degree or spectrum so I declare myself right.
>>

 No.467473

>>467463
>when you can't tell the difference between fascism and Bonapartism
>>

 No.467474

>>467472
PMC - someone whose labor isn't involved in the production of commodities but rather that reproduction/maintenance of the conditions under which commodity production occurs
>Why are reddit tier radlibs larping as communists so dim witted. The most unoriginal people on the planet
>>

 No.467475

File: 1679213036699.mp4 ( 567.57 KB , 640x360 , FjmUDEhqByBLkobJ.mp4 )

>absolute chad
>>

 No.467479

>>467474
Okay asshole what doesn't count as labor to you?
>>

 No.467480

>>467479
Someone is in the bitchy phase of their weedstral cycle
>>

 No.467482

>>467480
I've seen fucking nurses being included as PMCs. Term was coined in the 70's when corporations had thick layers of middle management but that's all been replaced by IT. PMC had long ceased to be a meaningful term if it ever was.
>>

 No.467484

>>467482
Cope, dimwitted fag. ITcels are all PMCfags too.
<Try having an original thought in your life.
>>

 No.467487

>>467484
The hottest commodities right now are all in IT. You're speaking to me on an IT system right now commieboo.
>>

 No.467488

what you be talking about incels

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sector
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_sector_of_the_economy

(theres also fourth sector in fact)


you're all incels
>>

 No.467489

>>

 No.467490

>>467489
A lot of muhleftism is composed of people in the pentanary sector of neets, students, and panhandlers who aspire to quanternary status.
>>

 No.467491

>>467490
yeah lets kill them in based T4 program, adolf
>>

 No.467494

>>467488
Are you agreeing with Stalinboo that people in IT ate tertiary and therefore not in the "real" process of commodity production?
If so, do you think Toyota's drive themselves into people's garages.
It's a BS point regardless considering how much digital only commodities there ate like songs and streaming services.
>>

 No.467495

File: 1679251541829.webm ( 3.58 MB , 852x480 , 1676991536883383.webm )

>>467484
The only people I've ever seen use the term PMC are wealthy clout chasing white pseudo intellectuals like Chapo Trap House.
It tries to play on Protestant work ethic. All it really means is any worker that's not living hand to mouth. That you're not a real victim of capitalist exploitation unless you're suffering. Which is ironic considering this pejorative is often hurled by people that can comfortably live off their family's wealth and don't even need to hold a job like a PMC would much less suffer like "real" workers do.
You can also tell they're punk ass faggots because they never call out the only real PMCs, cops and soldiers. Two classes of people that exist solely to uphold private property.
Because of course these little Dirt Bag Left worms are heavily propertied themselves and share the need with the booj to keep them around.
>>

 No.467496

>>467495
>The only people I've ever seen use….
>…faggot solipsism
>>

 No.467499

>>467495
>The only people I've ever seen use the term PMC are wealthy clout chasing white pseudo intellectuals like Chapo Trap House.
You need to get out more then. Serious Marxists like Adolph Reed use it all the time.
>>

 No.467501

>>467499
>Adolph Reed
>Another anti idpoler that blames the failure of the left on uppity niqqers.
You're only proving my point.
>>

 No.467502

>>467499
Adolf Reed is a dirt bag intelligentsia and is exactly the heavily propertied navel gazing pseudo intellectual "Marxist" I'm talking about.
>>

 No.467504

>>467501
>>467502
Ah, so you're actually an imbecile suffering from delusions of competence. Makes sense.
>>

 No.467506

>>

 No.467507

>>467502
Nah man, don't dunk on Adolph Reed, he's decent.

As far as the term PMC goes, i wish more people had gone with PMS for Professional Managerial Strata, so that it doesn't collide with Private Military Contractor which also acronyms to PMC.

There's also a debate about whether or not there's a manageriat that has formed a distinct class in the Marxist sense. So there's also people who will argue against labeling it a managerial strata and insisting on the class moniker. I haven't made up my mind about that, so don't expect a conclusion.
>>

 No.467513

File: 1679262581290.jpeg ( 23.83 KB , 474x474 , lol.jpeg )

>>467507
>There's also a debate about whether or not there's a manageriat that has formed a distinct class in the Marxist sense.
lmao

and what is a distinct characteristic of this distinct "manageriat" class?

>I myself more of a "cognitariat" than "proletariat"

epic last words of a wage slave as his ass gets further proletarianized
>>

 No.467514

>>467513
I already told you and you waved your hands around like a faggot
>>467474
>>

 No.467516

>>467514
I never talked to you before retard

>someone whose labor isn't involved in the production of commodities but rather that reproduction/maintenance of the conditions under which commodity production occurs

how is that a class characteristic?
that's just non-productive labor if we're talking about management or productive if we're talking about replenishment of the depreciating capital stock
>>

 No.467517

I think I need to explain complete basics of marxist theory on a leftoid board.

Class is characterized only by its relationship to the surplus being produced in a society.
>>

 No.467518

PMC is an attempt to mystify what the technocratic polity was, pretending that there was still a republic where you vote or any democratic impulse mattered for anything. It was made as a pseudo-Marxist attempt at class analysis, intended to obfuscate those who had secured position in the post-war order and would fight bitterly to keep it. It is around this time that a layer of petty managers would proliferate, whose only specialty was making others suffer. This was the replacement of industrial work with service work, something Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about in 1970 to announce what the new plan was - he called it the "technetronic" worker, but this had been foreseen by what was established in the post-war order and what changed in the 1930s. Attached is his writing - it's fairly short and easy enough to read.

The PMC critique found adherents among the neoconservatives, who needed something to obfuscate their own strategy and support base during neoliberalism. What they don't like to tell you is that a lot of "PMCs" were the liberals who defected to Reagan and never looked back, who pronounced their faith in capitalism and total Social Darwinism. The progressives were split between grifters who were faithful believers in the eugenic creed, and morons who were the sheep saying "two legs baaaaaad". It's insulting how much the progressives have degraded their base. Those retards will believe anything.

Anyway it was revived around the Trump period as part of the "throw out a million different lies to pretend that this isn't eugenics". After 2020, the liberals and Trumpoids made it clear what side of the war they were on, and everything from the Rightist echo chamber is scripted to steer the faithful to the full eugenic creed. Trump doesn't even deny his faith in eugenics, and anyone pretending otherwise is a faggot of the highest caliber.
>>

 No.467520

File: 1679267121030.png ( 258.07 KB , 512x497 , yourmeds.png )

>>

 No.467521

File: 1679267137271.png ( 460.97 KB , 993x1556 , address.png )

>>467495
but you don't understand, who needs doctors, accountants or programmers? plus, my manager was mean to me last week, how do you explain that?
now let me tell you which activities produce value and which don't…
>>

 No.467522

>>467519
IT doesn't produce commodities as such - nor does security work or various other functions where the labor is commodified, but what is "produced" is control of the society. This begs the question of what controls people, and there is one answer above all - suffering.

We spend exorbitant effort lying to each other and compelling others to follow a ruinous program, because it is too much to let people live and the siege must go on. No one here wants to acknowledge eugenics though. They always pull back because if they do so, they give away the game and that all hopes of revolution were a lie, and a barely believed lie at that.

You could do the thing people actually wanted from the start, which is not this shit, but that's too much. You'd rather spend trillions of dollars to feed a conceit and a myth about genetics. Of course, it is silly to expect anyone to ever give up a slavery. It has never happened unless the slaves revolt, and slave revolts do not last long. The one time in history a slave revolt succeeded, the whole world was on notice and made sure no such thing ever happened again, and the freedom won was suspect - of course, the Haitian Revolution wasn't just a slave revolt, and often the rebels were themselves slave owners - colored slave owners but still slave owners who saw themselves protecting their stake.

>>467520
See, this is all they have - Satanic retard chanting. He doesn't care about winning anything. He just wants snark, assuming he isn't some bot out of an Air Force base - but I know there are enough degenerate faggots, and I have nothing but pure contempt for them. They gain nothing and do it for nothing but faggotry. Hate, hate, HATE.
>>

 No.467523

>>467520
Wow jannies policing this place too to censor one of the few ITT with a functioning brain. What faggotry.

>>467517
This is economism and a vulgarization of social class. You'd have to believe that liberalism actually abolished formal social class to believe that, but the liberals themselves never did such a thing. The liberals had no problem with social class distinctions or aristocracy - they just saw that they had as much right to be aristocrats as the nobility, and that their aristocracy would be premised on supposed merit rather than hereditary privilege or feudal titles.

It is the case that every class, to be a class for itself, has to hold on to certain property. The free workers own their body, and so defending that body is defending their stake and their concept of freedom and class interest. If the workers do not possess themselves, they're worse off than slaves ever were. That is what has happened now.
You might haw haw and say "rights aren't real", but the slaves certainly didn't think manumission meant nothing, and understood there were people eager to put them back in chains or just kill the ex-slaves and chop them up for medical experiments.
>>

 No.467524

File: 1679267913980.png ( 2.33 MB , 1502x1199 , 1678340846423.png )

>>467522
what a well thought and well redacted reply, now everything makes sense. I'm convinced - no - I'm certain that I speak for all the users here when I say that the extreme clarity of your argument has completely persuaded me

>>467523
if you mean the post with the shanghai pic, I deleted it because I made a typo and didn't want people to notice
>>

 No.467525

>>467523
A post with a reaction image is evidence of "jannies policing this place too to censor"? Take your meds more often and you might not make this mistake.
>>

 No.467526

>>467523
>This is economism
Yes, and? Class is an economic category.
More at eleven.

Don't muddy the terminology.
If you want to peddle your pet lib theories about social groups, then use strata or something.
>>

 No.467527

>>467523
Org Tanny jannies be absolutely seething about this place.
>>

 No.467528

>>467523
Look at all the seething this post caused all the brainless Leninoid class reductionists kek
>>

 No.467529

>>467518
It's no surprise that "The Dirtbag Left" glommed onto such a deeply right wing term. They're crypto capitalist reactionaries that think that criticizing the GOP for their glaring fuck ups that can be seen from space makes them "left".
>>

 No.467531

>>467528
Lenin and Stalin would have understood this for what it was and saw the danger of institutions answerable to no one. Lenin broke down and couldn't control it. Stalin had to be the boss and the emperor and keep his house in order, which was no easy task. When Khrushchev takes over a lot of these people who wanted "easy communism" took over and decided to just say fuckit to the project.

It is kind of the point of communism to build the "PMC", because that would be the class basis for the communist state in the Marxist-Leninist model. They weren't under any illusions that they were not doing this though, and that the apparatchiks and technocrats did not constitute an influential sector in the Party. There was a very reasonable fear of institutional rot that would be neglected until the end of the USSR, but those who wanted to salvage the project saw that there was something rotten in Moscow, and made attempts to ameliorate the worst consequences of it. The same fears existed in the US of the growing technocrats, until neoliberalism decided to not just encourage the rot but make the rot the prime thing. That was difficult to compete against, and Republicans are conscious of their strategy from Reagan on. It is called by various names, one of them being the "Bad Santa" theory - that the Democrats are busy trying to placate too many disparate groups, while the new Republicans focused on a few key groups and told them they were the silent majority. The reaction from the Democrats was to double down on their aristocratic wing, and that became the normal of American politics after the Cold War. During the 80s Democrats tried to run with the old stuff or at least something that resembled it, and they would be trounced over and over again. In politics, it is hard to compete against pure rot unless there is a persistent pressure resisting the state, and that became an impossibility. It became Democrat policy to try out-neoliberaling the neoliberals, and therefore you get Clinton, Obama, and all the way to the basically fascist Bootygay.
>>

 No.467532

>>467528
Anyway, "class reductionism" is itself a silly talking point. The struggle of classes had long been understood to be a struggle over institutions, waged by organized entities. Inchoate mobs remain inchoate until they are led by some principle, which implies that the mob has a leader. There is no Revolution of 1791 unless Danton is there to lead that mob. You can argue there are a number of men who could take Danton's place and that is true, but it remains the case that Danton acted and knew what had to be done if he was to win, and the king stepped in some deep shit so if he didn't act, someone would have in that environment. The idea that you just "rabble rabble" to make events move is performative politics at its worst, and one takeaway from Marx is that this is a shitty way to get what you want in politics. A good Marxist knows conspiracy very well, and knows that politics is at heart a conspiracy and the nature of that conspiracy. It used to be that conspiracy was the way most people understood politics, so far as they engaged in such behavior, and the Marxists were very adept at navigating that world and dominating the other radical groups. The idea that conspiracies can't possibly exist is a very newfangled one. The Marxist-Leninists were always on the lookout for conspiracies against the Party and within the Party, because that's what they themselves were engaged in and because there were indeed conspiracies against the Party in the Soviet Union.

Point being that reducing classes to essences is missing the point of what social class even refers to, and if you have to define "class" in this narrow way, you don't really want to acknowledge social class. You want a narrative that constructs reality as you see fit, and want to pretend that people organized by an interest are not at all organized. The bourgeois are not united by some spooky force that money creates, but because they're invested in real institutions like banks and governments, and capitalism is premised on those institutions existing. If you have the imagined "Little England" ancapistan, you don't have capitalism, but some fantasy version of feudalism, and that's why ancaps shriek like retards at any culture that suggests their precious view of a whites-only world is a child's idea. Neoliberal society goes out of its way to suggest that there is only the bourgeois way of life, and if working class life is presented as all, it is trashy and depraved and exists to be humiliated. The view of working class people as anything other than simps to be cajoled is anathema to the neoliberal view of society and history; conversely, they can only conceive of governments run by the best and the brightest, who possess this Luciferian light that allows them and them alone to conspire. They either imagine themselves as being Promethean, or they ascribe to another group some demonic power for doing basically what they want to do. That's the dominant mode of thinking in neoliberal, eugenic society.

>>467529
I don't think acknowledging the professionals and managers with university education is an inherently right-wing position, but it is simply the facts that the PMC concept was adopted by the center-right as a way to take the blame off of themselves and their ongoing conspiracy. Teachers are included in the "PMC" for good reason, but teachers tend to be poor as fuck and struggle to stay afloat. The critique of technocratic society is repurposed for a project like charterizing the public schools, but the technocratic society itself isn't attacked. Charterization is something the PMC loves, which is why you have Cory Booker telling you how great school choice is. It should be clear that the right doesn't think about justice or anything functional, but purely about how to get ahead and kick someone down. The idea of a cooperative politics is anathema to the right constitutionally, even if you explain the obvious benefits of not being basically Satanic in their commitment to greed. All they think is "me wantee". They're natural slaves, selected for that trait and encouraged in all of their vices.
>>

 No.467533

File: 1679287539672.jpg ( 101.04 KB , 799x599 , 1678322734291738.jpg )

>>

 No.467534

>>467532
>>467531
I've read these posts so I'll save everyone the trouble. They're a hodge podge of half baked ideas loosely connected by a meandering line of logic.
>>

 No.467536

File: 1679317761612.jpg ( 25.08 KB , 678x452 , 1674048793163194.jpg )

>>467534
give me a tl;dr, are they still arguing about this stupid PMC theory?
who could realistically think that a teacher, a consultant or a scientist are not exploited because the goods they produce (health care, information, etc.) are not as physically concrete as, for example, an armchair?
they throw the word class around without ever explaining how such an heterogeneous group, with different interests and no organized political power or representation whatsoever, constitutes a class in any sense of the word
the whole discussion reeks of american politics tbh. in the rest of the world it isn't rare for teachers and clerks to have unions, participate in general strikes, protest, etc. and movements like the anti-996 campaigns show that these new sectors (IT) have not escaped proletarianization

what's the point of writing so much about this shit?
>>

 No.467537

File: 1679318401921.jpg ( 12.39 KB , 504x229 , classpill.jpg )

>>467528
>class reductionists
this usually is a liberal slur for "socialist" or "marxist"

Socialists should perhaps embrace the label, and consider it a virtue like having a high level of class consciousness. Maybe we could have a metric for theories and if the level of class-reduction is insufficient it's considered flawed.
>>

 No.467538

>>467536
Clearly a managerial strata is trying to become a class for it self by itself. It's not very well defined atm. Corporate managers cajoling the workers clearly belong to it, but to what extend other groups also belong to it hasn't been figured out.
What is also unclear is weather or not the managerial strata achieves their goals of becoming a real class. We could be mistaken entirely and this is nothing but a failed attempt at creating a caste or a guild.
>>

 No.467539

>>467537
No, class reductionist is the term for Marxist that try to reduce everything about capitalism to a math equation then brow beat anyone that doesn't agree with their asinine premise.
Just as you are now just straight accusing everyone of being a liberal even though not one person here is arguing against any Marxist tenants, just your interpretation.
>>

 No.467540

>>467536
>What's the point of having a detailed and nuanced understanding of the modern world as it exists
t. muh left
>>

 No.467542

>>467533
>muh class reductionism
>i can't read
many such cases
>>

 No.467544

>>467539
>class reductionist is the term for Marxist that try to reduce everything about capitalism to a math equation
Math is a very effective tool, why would you think this is anything but high praise.
>>

 No.467545

File: 1679324636149.jpeg ( 87.25 KB , 500x572 , read nigga read.jpeg )

>>467536
Productive labor produces time-durable goods that are not consumed immediately as they are produced.

code monkeys are productive, teachers are not - this is just a basic fact of economic surplus production

nevertheless they are both wage slaves and if teachers want to support the struggle of surplus producing proles then they are welcome

but if they want a bigger cut that would be paid out of the surplus produced by other workers (as is usually the case with public sector wage slaves in capitalist states) - then I don't see why communists should support them
>>

 No.467546

>>467545
The time durable good that teachers produce are skilled proles.
>>

 No.467547

>>467546
labor can't be surplus when it is the source of surplus

labor is distinct from capital
>>

 No.467548

>>467547
Labor is a commodity. And some labor is more valuable then others.
>>

 No.467549

>>467546
tho teachers can be productive to the extent that they produce educational material that could be accumulated and distributed further in time

or if they contribute to accumulated scientific knowledge with research
>>

 No.467550

>>467548
>what is the difference between labor and labor power
is it too much to expect a knowledge of the most basic things from a leftoid board?
>>

 No.467551

>>467545
>Productive labor produces time-durable goods that are not consumed immediately as they are produced.
If this is what Marx meant by productive labor then it is absolutely retarded.
By this logic a Hollywood actor playing a role would be productive labor, but an actor playing in a live play would not.
A musician recording an album would be productive labor but none of the songs they sing on tour would.
>>

 No.467552

>>467550
Please, all you pseuds do is imply you're right without saying why.
>>

 No.467553

>>467551
>By this logic a Hollywood actor playing a role would be productive labor, but an actor playing in a live play would not.
>A musician recording an album would be productive labor but none of the songs they sing on tour would.
yes, that is right
your problem?

What in the word "accumulation" do you not understand brainlet?
>>

 No.467554

>>467553
What do you mean by accumulation?
>>

 No.467555

>>467553
Why would there be this distinction. I'm sure your either wrong or bastardizing Marx's meaning.
>>

 No.467556

>>467552
If you're not adhering to the basic axiom of LTV then any distinction between productive/nonproductive labor loses all meaning

all human activity is productive that is paid money for

banking is productive
weapons manufacturing is productive
onlyfans is productive
etc
>>

 No.467557

>>467545
What a computer program does is command and control. You're not making a commodity - early computer software had a problem with piracy, because computer programming lends itself to a communist way of sharing programs. It is far easier to let the programmer get his/her pay then make the programmer sell something that could be reproduced in microseconds by copy+paste and trnsmission. Basic code should be as ubiquitous as water, but rather than that, we have the reverse where water is made into a scarce resource by deliberate deprivation.

Anyway, productive labor and the working class are not moral categories. In Marx, the working class is the proletariat and the two terms are used interchangeably. Beggars and whores are part of the working class just as proletarianized professionals are. The distinction of who is in the working class in Marx is derived entirely from relation to property rather than any moral sense of what workers or capitalists do. The bourgeoisie is defined by its ownership of title that allows them to avoid working while retaining honor and status in society. A beggar is placed under the expectation that he ought to work, and his failure to do so is why he is a beggar. The great mission of the liberals was to split the working class by moral philosophy into grades of civic worth, where the beggar starts out as a struggling worker before being cast permanently into the residuum, and then degraded as part of a soft-kill tactic / tactic to modify the beggar into a pure animal. That's why Marx shrieking about the lumpens - because the lumpens weren't useful for his projct - was the worst thing you could do if you wanted to unite the working class. So long as the beggar exists to be humiliated, he will always be a threat. The only way forward then is to eliminate all of the beggars and accelerate their suffering - and then the threat of beggarization is used to discipline the proletariat and force them to accept literally anything. Every man and woman will be reduced to a beggar in the end, except those that win the class struggle and ascend into a fake form of godhood. In the 1990s, this came to pass, and the liberals started going fully into this Luciferian idea where they glorify themselves. Bush Sr. referenced that in his million points of light speech - he's making an overtly Luciferian statement that would not have been lost on people who knew what America actually was, who are familiar with its history.

It's hilarious how people are trying to talk sense into the retard mystifiers in this thread, and they just double down on this failed faggotry. That is all eugenics does - double down on faggotry and disallow anything real to exist. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?

Point being, in neoliberalism, producing misery became itself life's prime want. It permeates the culture, because the incentives of a eugenist society line up behind creating Ingsoc at the least and making a total hellworld on average.
>>

 No.467558

>>467554
>What do you mean by accumulation?
accumulation of the products of labor

>>467555
>Why would there be this distinction.
how are you gonna accumulate what is not time-durable retard?
>>

 No.467559

>>467556
"Productive" and "unproductive" are distinct categories with meaning, not merely categories pertaining to exchange. Marx distinquishes between production of use-values or things we would actually want and production of fictitious capital or things that are only useful for destroying people. He writes explicitly about capitalism becoming a fetter on producing useful things, as there are incentives to do the exact opposite and make people suffer. Something like today's military-industrial complex would fall under "ruin of the contending classes".
>>

 No.467561

>>467557
I'm not gonna read your tldr retard. If you can't keep it simple - you're not worth my time.

>What a computer program does is command and control.

computer program is a time-durable use value that can be accumulated

>>467559
>"Productive" and "unproductive" are distinct categories with meaning
if has no meaning if you don't adhere to basic axiom of the LTV that the labor is the source of all value

otherwise all meaning is completely arbitrary
>>

 No.467562

>>467558
You're retarded, here is a non retarded explanation of CAPITALIST productive labor. And the actual explanation doesn't lend itself to declaring entire fields "unproductive".
>‘It follows from what has been said that the designation of
labour as productive labour has absolutely nothing to do with
the determinate content of that labour, its special utility, or the
particular use-value in which it manifests itself. The same kind
of labour may be productive or unproductive.’ (IV/1, 401).
‘An actor for example, or even a clown, according to this
definition, is a productive labourer if he works in the service
of a capitalist (an entrepreneur) to whom he returns more
labour than he receives from him in the form of wages; while
a jobbing tailor who comes to the capitalist’s house and
patches his trousers for him, is an unproductive labourer. The
former’s labour is exchanged with capital, the latter’s with
revenue.’(IV/1, 157)
>>

 No.467563

>>467562
In other words IT pros, actors, nurses etc that are in the employ of a capitalist enterprise are PRODUCTIVE labor.
If you hire any of these guys to do a side job for you for your personal benefit then that is unproductive capitalist labor.
>>

 No.467564

>>467562
>You're retarded
nah, you're retarded

not all wage labor is productive labor

for productive labor, ie labor that can facilitate accumulation and so extended reproduction, products of labor need be ACCUMULATABLE, ie time-durable

go shove your quotes up your ass dogmoid
>>

 No.467565

>>467563
>If you hire any of these guys to do a side job for you for your personal benefit then that is unproductive capitalist labor.
<everything that turns up a profit is productive by definition
gambling is productive now lel

that how retarded you dogmoids are
>>

 No.467566

>>467564
When a doctor treats someone in a hospital the patient is charged more then what the doctor gets paid, that's the accumulation.
>>

 No.467567

>>467566
now translate it to the language of labor theory of value and try to make sense of it brainlet

product of the doctor's labor is not accumulated, it is consumed immediately
>>

 No.467568

>>467540
yeah, the point is that your "PMC theory" is completely detached from reality
>>

 No.467569

>>467567
Due you're retarded if you think any employee that doesn't make a commodity that can sit on a shelf isn't enriching their employer. Especially considering that the US is mostly a service based economy.
Yet another Dunning Krueger tankie that is bastardizing Marx
>>

 No.467570

>>467569
Dude you're retarded if you think about capitalism not in terms of reproduction of the whole system, but in terms of individual capitalists llel.
>>

 No.467571

>>467570
Yes, so exactly is a doctor not making money for his employer. Do you think the IT industry got so big by not stealing surplus value?
>>

 No.467573

>>467570
If everyone in healthcare and IT is an unproductive capitalist laborer then how the fuck did those industries get so big?
>>

 No.467574

>>467571
value is created by labor and then accumulated by capitalist that uses it for reproduction and personal consumption

doctors facilitate accumulation, just like teachers and all other non-productive labor does

PRODUCTIVE LABOR GETS ACCUMULATED AND USER FOR REPRODUCTION, IT CONSTITUTES A SURPLUS OUT OF WHICH ALL THE NON-PRODUCTIVE LABOR GETS PAID
>>

 No.467575

>>>/leftypol/467545
read >>>/R9K/1973
your babble makes no sense lol

>>467562
note that he couldn't refute this quote, and is now acting as the burden of proof was on you. I can't decide if this guy is trolling or just plain retarded I guess both
>>

 No.467576

>>467573
How is the real estate industry got so big?

Also IT is productive retard.
>>

 No.467577

>>467574
Thank you idiot, the argument is whether IT and doctors' labor is productive or non production.
>>

 No.467578

>>467575
shut the fuck up brainlet

quotes is not an argument

not everything that turns out a profit is productive
>>

 No.467579

>>467577
okay moron

Question: does a code monkey produce a time-durable use value?
>>

 No.467580

>>>/leftypol/467578
negation is not an argument
>quotes is not an argument
it is, try reading it
>>

 No.467581

>>467576
>doctors facilitate accumulation,
Hospital"s in the West are capitalist enterprises. Doctor's are not merely facilitating accumulation by putting proles back to work. Their employer is charging more then they are paying for the doctor, then taking the difference as profits and accumulating more equity I other hospitals.
>>

 No.467583

>>467579
Yes, of course. Do you think code is burned to power computers?
>>

 No.467584

>>467580
ATTENTION!
QUESTION: Is gambling industry productive?
After all, casino employees get paid out of the capital, not revenue lmaoo.
>>

 No.467585

>>467583
>Yes, of course. Do you think code is burned to power computers?
Fascinating.

THE NEXT QUESTION: Is the labor of code monkey productive?

AND THE NEXT QUESTION: Is code monkey a part of the "IT"?
>>

 No.467586

>>467581
>Their employer is charging more then they are paying for the doctor, then taking the difference as profits and accumulating more equity I other hospitals.
Fascinating.

QUESTION: Is gambling industry productive?
After all, casino employees get paid out of the capital, not revenue lmaoo.
>>

 No.467587

File: 1679331575479.jpeg ( 25.97 KB , 474x429 , lol.jpeg )

God, I'm completely DESTROYING theorylet dogmoid libs ITT.
>>

 No.467588

>>>/leftypol/467585
>Is the labor of code monkey productive?
it depends on whether or not there was an absorption (accumulation)
>The capitalist production process, therefore, is not merely the production of commodities. It is a process which absorbs unpaid labour, which makes raw materials and means of labour—the means of production —into means for the absorption of unpaid labour.
>It follows from what has been said that the designation of labour as productive labour has absolutely nothing to do with the determinate content of the labour, its special utility, or the particular use-value in which it manifests itself.
>The same kind of labour may be productive or unproductive.
if the commodity is durable or not is irrelevant
>>

 No.467589

>>467588
>more quotes

QUESTION: what is a surplus?
>>

 No.467590

>>467585
>Fascinating.
>He he you don't understand the heights of my intellect.
Blow it out your ass.
>THE NEXT QUESTION: Is the labor of code monkey productive?
Yes, they were hired to produce a commodity that will sell for more than they were collectively paid.
>AND THE NEXT QUESTION: Is code monkey a part of the "IT"?
Yes, why do you put IT in quotes like there's some kind of contention about fucking programmers being in IT.
>>

 No.467591

>>467590
>Yes, they were hired to produce a commodity that will sell for more than they were collectively paid.
QUESTION: does this commodity has anything to do with a process called "accumulation"?
>>

 No.467592

>>467588
>if the commodity is durable or not is irrelevant
I know it's weird that the brainlets in this thread are so hung up on this. Likw what constitutes durable anyway. Is milk non durable because it expires so quickly? Its so stupid.
>>

 No.467593

>>467590
>Yes, why do you put IT in quotes like there's some kind of contention about fucking programmers being in IT.

>>467577
<the argument is whether IT and doctors' labor is productive or non production.

QUESTION: do you understand now why I put IT in quotes?
>>

 No.467594

>>467591
>does this commodity has anything to do with a process called "accumulation"?
Yes, the profits will be used to accumulate more capital.
>>

 No.467595

>>467592
>Likw what constitutes durable anyway.
It means discrete in time.
>>

 No.467596

>>467593
>do you understand now why I put IT in quotes?
Because you think you are way smarter than you actually are.
>>

 No.467597

>>467594
QUESTION: Is profit = surplus value?
>>

 No.467598

>>467595
Dafaq does that mean.
>>

 No.467599

>>467598
It means that a product of labor is separated in time from the producer.
>>

 No.467600

>>467551
>If this is what Marx meant by productive labor
it isn't. I'm not sure why you are here if you haven't read marx, but here is a short answer
>https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/add1.htm
chapter 12, "Productivity of Capital. Productive and Unproductive Labour"
>>

 No.467601

>>467597
Yes, Get to your goddamn point
>>

 No.467602

>>467601
QUESTION: what is a surplus value?

THE NEXT QUESTION: does surplus value get accumulated?
>>

 No.467603

>>467596
>Because you think you are way smarter than you actually are
nah, it is because you ask retarded questions such as "is IT labor productive"
>>

 No.467604

>>467601
he seems to think that accumulation means literal accumulation (hoarding) of the specific commodity that is being produced. I already refuted his point here >>>/R9K/1973 but he obviously refuses to engage the refutation
>>

 No.467605

>>467602
Enough games, answer my my questions now. Is Netflix a capitalist enterprise?
>>

 No.467606

>>467604
>he seems to think that accumulation means literal accumulation (hoarding) of the specific commodity that is being produced.
QUESTION: Is labor theory of value exclusively about products of labor?
>>

 No.467607

>>467605
QUESTION: How is surplus value relates to the products of labor?
>>

 No.467608

>>467604
I actually thinks services can't be productive labor because they're consumed right away.
I'm sure he's the same autist I've run into on this board before who makes these very literal interpretations of Marx and insists he's right on pedantic grounds
>>

 No.467609

>>467607
Question: Does Netflix and the labors within constitute "IT" to you?
>>

 No.467610

>>467608
*I actually think he thinks
>>

 No.467611

>>467608
does he? I don't see any ground or interpretation, he is making some retarded non-marixst argument the worst possible way
>>

 No.467612

File: 1679332862427.jpeg ( 24.57 KB , 474x266 , th-553042157.jpeg )

Theorylets completely DEMOLISHED and reduced to impotent seething lol
>>

 No.467613

>>467611
That's what I assumed he was doing. Isn't this a Marx quote?
>Productive labor produces time-durable goods that are not consumed immediately as they are produced.
He posted this as proof that Marx defined productive labor as labor that produced commodities that could be separated for long periods of time. Basically anyone who provides a service like health care is unproductive labor.
>>

 No.467614

>>467609
Obviously Netflix as a software platform is time-durable. So labor that went into programming is productive.
>>

 No.467615

>>467612
So your saying teachers are unproductive because they're paid for with taxes and their labor is consumed immediately. Right?
>>

 No.467617

>>467615
yes, teachers are paid out of the surplus produced by productive labor
>>

 No.467618

>>467614
You cannot buy Netflix software. You will find it nowhere on the market. What people buy is the access to movies which they immediately consume. There is no durability to the Netflix service, as soon as you stop paying your subscription it disappears as a service.
>>

 No.467619

>>467613
>Isn't this a Marx quote?
no, lmao. and even if it was, it would still be wrong
in fact, marx makes all the obvious arguments against such nonsensical proposition
>>

 No.467620

>>467617
How is productive labor paid then?
>>

 No.467621

>>467618
>You cannot buy Netflix software.
Obviously you can. Netflix software platform is a capital good. Just go buy Netflix shares brainlet lmao.

You can buy a prostitute, does it mean it is productive?
>>

 No.467622

>>467616
Everything is paid from the surplus labor.
>>

 No.467623

>>467620
>How is productive labor paid then?
productive labor gets paid out of the surplus it produces

LTV 101 kek
>>

 No.467624

>>467621
No you cannot, you cannot by the software that Netflix runs on and run your own Netflix service in your home. You clearly don't understand very basic fundamentals about IT like what a client is.
>>

 No.467625

>>467623
Teachers are producing proles, whose labor is purchased by capitalists.
>>

 No.467626

File: 1679333604624.jpeg ( 14.79 KB , 372x363 , face.jpeg )

>>467624
>No you cannot, you cannot by the software that Netflix runs on and run your own Netflix service in your home.
*sigh*

QUESTION: Can a capitalist buy and sell Netflix shares?
>>

 No.467627

>>467625
>Teachers are producing proles, whose labor is purchased by capitalists.
QUESTION: Do wages get paid out of the surplus value?
>>

 No.467628

>>467626
Yes, why do people pay Netflix a monthly fee. It's not for software which comes preinstalled on set top boxes.
>>

 No.467629

>>467628
>Yes, why do people pay Netflix a monthly fee.
QUSETION: Is there a difference between a capitalist and a consumer?
>>

 No.467630

>>467629
Question, are Netflix customers consuming software or movies?
>>

 No.467631

>>467626
Why are you sighing for dumb faggot. You're the one saying IT is unproductive labor because it's a service.
>>

 No.467632

>>467630
QUESTION: Can capitalists own shares in companies that own capital goods?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Can a consumer of a Ford truck take a Ford factory and run it in his home?
>>

 No.467633

>>467626
you are replying to something that is just plain wrong. no one can be this stupid, he is not arguing in good faith don't take the bait
>>

 No.467634

>>467627
Maybe saying teachers are productive labor is a stretch but certainly not healthcare workers. Even highly socialized healthcare like in the UK are still profit seeking in many respects.
>>

 No.467635

>>467631
>You're the one saying IT is unproductive labor because it's a service.
QUESTION: Does "IT" produce time-durable use values?
>>

 No.467636

>>467634
QUESTION: For surplus value to be accumulated and then distributed as wages does there need to be a corresponding accumulated surplus of products of labor?
>>

 No.467637

>>467635
That's not what defines productive labor. If I hire a singer for my birthday party that's unproductive labor.
If I hire a singer to perform at a concert so I can hire yet more singers that's productive labor. The singer is doing the exact same thing in both situations.
>>467633
You and him are the brainlets that think teachers are unproductive labor because they're paid with taxes and because teaching is a service.
Teachers don't teach any old thing. They teach what capitalists need proles to know. Educated proles are a commodity that's purchased.
Unproductive labor is labor that's not a part of any capitalist enterprise. Paying a tutor to teach me math is unproductive if I'm doing it to simply know math.
>>

 No.467638

>>467637
>You and him
I didn't say that. anyway, don't take the bait
>>

 No.467639

>>467637
>If I hire a singer to perform at a concert so I can hire yet more singers that's productive labor. The singer is doing the exact same thing in both situations.
QUESTION: Out of what are you going to pay wages to this singer?
>>

 No.467640

>>467637
>Unproductive labor is labor that's not a part of any capitalist enterprise.
QUESTION: Is casino a capitalist enterprise?
>>

 No.467641

>>467639
At my birthday party, I'm paying out of pocket.
At the concert, I pay the singer with ticket sales revenue.
Services not being productive labor is something SMITH posited. It was vehemently rejected by Marx.
>>

 No.467642

>>467641
>At the concert, I pay the singer with ticket sales revenue.
QUESTION: What constitutes revenue?
>>

 No.467643

>>

 No.467644

>>467643
>Sales
QUESTION: What is a relationship of sales to surplus value?
>>

 No.467645

>>467642
Marx rejects your premise, why not read Marx instead of learning about home through whatever libertarian text you read.
>>

 No.467646

>>467645
QUESTION: Out of what teachers get paid their wages?
>>

 No.467647

>>467644
I don't pay my employees all the money I was able to sell their commodity for.
>>

 No.467648

>>467647
QUESTION: What determines a price that you sell your "commodity" at?
>>

 No.467649

>>467646
They're paid with taxes.
>>

 No.467650

>>467649
>They're paid with taxes.
QUESTION: Out of what are taxes collected?
>>

 No.467651

>>467648
The market, can you just spit out your point. Walking me to the point isn't clever.
>>

 No.467652

>>467651
>The market
QUSETION: given two reproducible commodities that get exchanged at a particular ratio, what determines this exchange ratio?
>>

 No.467653

>>467650
Profits, that doesn't mean it's unproductive. Schools are factories that produce proles whose labor is purchased on the international market.
>>

 No.467654

>>467653
>Profits
QUESTION: What is a relationship of profits to surplus value?
>>

 No.467655

>>467652
All the other price differentials between all the other commodities.
>>

 No.467656

>>467654
I already answered that, how did Netflix become one of the largest capitalist enterprises in the world if IT labor isn't productive capitalist labor?
>>

 No.467657

>>467655
QUESTION: when you sell tickets for a particular price do you know "price differentials between all the other commodities"?
>>

 No.467658

>>467657
Marx rejected the premise that services cannot be productive labor. That is an Adam Smith argument.
>>

 No.467659

>>467656
>I already answered that
QUESTION: Where?

>IT labor isn't productive capitalist labor

IT is productive if it produces time-durable use values
>>

 No.467660

>>467658
QUESTION: Was Marx's theory of prices a theory where market agents know "price differentials between all the other commodities"?
>>

 No.467661

>>467659
>IT is productive if it produces time-durable use values
Nope, that's an Adam Smith argument, Marxism rejects this.
>>

 No.467662

>>467656
I will give you a hint of what is happening. I can ask you a short question that requires a really long answer. if you don't do your homework and type a 1000+ word essay, your answer is most probably going to be wrong. if you do write a long answer, I can completely ignore it and ask some other question (that you probably already answered). you can cheat and post a quote, and even if the quote answers the question, I will just ignore it and say "I don't care about quotes"
think for a second, you are wasting your time
>>

 No.467663

>>467661
QUESTION: What was Smith's theory of value?
>>

 No.467664

>>467663
Services can be productive labor. How did Netflix get so big if all the labor it uses was unproductive.
You try to lie about how they make money by saying they actually sell software. But this can be taking a part by one question. Would customers continue to buy Netflix's "software" of it didn't have any movies?
Indeed it's entire ability to make money hinges on what movies it has available.
>>

 No.467665

>>467662
QUESTION: Out of what is casino paying its workers?
>>

 No.467666

>>467664
>How did Netflix get so big if all the labor it uses was unproductive.
QUESTION: Is banking industry "big"?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Is Netflix software platform a time-durable capital good?
>>

 No.467667

>>467665
Fuck Casinos, let's talk about FAANG. Facebook, Apple Amazon, Neflix, Google. The largest capitalist enterprises in history.
But can this be when Google doesn't even sell software or anthinng "durable".
>>

 No.467668

>>467667
>But can this be when Google doesn't even sell software or anthinng "durable".
QUESTION: Is a piece of software a time-durable use value?
>>

 No.467669

>>467666
>Is Netflix software platform a time-durable capital good?
No
>Is banking industry "big"?
Quit moving the goalposts, you said IT and healthcare are unproductive labor, even though they're behind some of the largest capitalist enterprises to ever exist, explain how this is so.
>>

 No.467670

>>467668
Yes, but selling software is not how Netflix makes money. Go on the app storw for yourself, their client is free.
>>

 No.467672

>>467669
>No
QUESTION: Did Netflix software platform disappear as soon as it was programmed?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Is a piece of infrastructure a capital good?
>>

 No.467674

>>467670
>Yes
QUESTION: Does this answer your question about if I think IT industry is productive or not?
>>

 No.467675

>>467671
That infrastructure isn't what's sold dumbass. It's getting to watch movies. This is like thinking people buy movie tickets because they want to visit a theatre. They came to watch a movie.
>>

 No.467676

>>467671
The movie disappears as soon as you stop watching it.
>>

 No.467677

>>467675
>That infrastructure isn't what's sold dumbass.
QUESTION: When you buy a TV do you also buy a news channel?
>>

 No.467679

>>467677
I do not pay for the local TV news. I pay for Netflix.
>>

 No.467680

>>467676
QUESTION: Is movie a time-durable use value?
>>

 No.467681

>>467679
QUESTION: When you buy a TV set do you pay for a TV broadcasting tower?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Is a TV broadcasting tower a capital good?
>>

 No.467682

>>467681
>>467680
Show me where Marx argues that services aren't productive labor.
>>

 No.467683

>>467681
>>467680
How come you can't answer the simple question of how Google and Netflix became the largest companies in the world without selling anything "durable" or "discrete in time".
And no, people aren't buying "Netflix software" that's used to broadcast movies, people use Netflix to watch movies.
>>

 No.467684

>>467682
QUESTION: Was Marx a part of classical school?
>>

 No.467685

>>467683
>Google and Netflix became the largest companies in the world without selling anything "durable" or "discrete in time".
QUESTION: Are Google search engine, Youtube software platform, and Netflix software platform time-durable?
>>

 No.467686

>>467684
Question, what durable good is Google selling that's "discreet in time". Is it GMail? Bur wait that's remains constantly tethered to Google's support staff 24/7
>>

 No.467687

>>467685
No, the videos are deleted off your hard drove. Search engine results are not a durable good. Do you think getting directions in an unfamiliar place is a durable good?
>>

 No.467688

>>467686
>Is it GMail?
Answer: Yes

>Bur wait that's remains constantly tethered to Google's support staff 24/7

QUESTION: When your electric grid is "constantly tethered to your Supplier's support staff" does it mean that your Supplier's electric grid not time-durable?
>>

 No.467690

>>467687
QUESTION: Is electricity that your computer consumes durable?

ANOTHER QUESTION: Is electric grid that supplies electricity for your computer time-durable?
>>

 No.467691

>>467688
GMAil is a service that needs to be constantly maintained. It is not durable in the least. Again you clearly know nothing about IT. Even common sense things about it.
>When your electric grid is "constantly tethered to your Supplier's support staff" does it mean that your Supplier's electric grid not time-durable?
But that's not the commodity in question. No one cares how Google powers their servers, that's not the service they came to use. They came to use the search engine, which they cannot own, take with them "discrete in time" I.e. pick up a handful of search results and use them as needed like well water or something.
They constantly have to query Google each and every time they want a result. And that result is consumed on the spot.
>>

 No.467692

>>467691
>GMAil is a service that needs to be constantly maintained. It is not durable in the least.
QUESTION: Does electric grid needs to be constantly maintained to supply you electricity?
>>

 No.467693

>>467690
>>467689
Just answer the question, which "durable" "discreet in time" commodity did Google and Netflix sell to become the Leviathans they are today.
>>

 No.467694

>>467691
>But that's not the commodity in question.
QUESTION: Are means of production commodities?
>>

 No.467695

>>467693
>which "durable" "discreet in time" commodity did Google and Netflix sell
ANSWER: They sell access to a capital good called "Youtube platform" and "Netflix platform". Just like some capitalists sell access to an electric grid or road.
>>

 No.467696

>>467694
So if any part of a service uses a durable good the service is now a durable good.
Teachers use books, which are durable. Is what teachers produce now a durable good kek?
>>

 No.467697

>>467696
>So if any part of a service uses a durable good the service is now a durable good.
ANSWER: Capital good by definition is a time-durable good. In Netflix case the capitalist sells you access to the capital good called "the Netflix platform" that further allows you to consume a time-durable use value called a "movie"
>>

 No.467698

>>467695
They sell access to the videos. The "platform" is trivial. I don't pay a maid for "access to her broom". I pay her to do the hard part, clean. Content creation is hard, Netflix hold licenses to movies, and YouTube pays its creators which keep them on the platform. No one is paying for software.
>>

 No.467699

>>467697
The "durable good" needs an army of IT personnel to keep it running 24/7/ along with legions of contractors.
No one thinks of something this continually labor intensive as anything but a service except you.
>>

 No.467700

>>467698
>Netflix hold licenses to movies
>No one is paying for software.
ANSWER: Then you pay Netflix for a time-durable good called a "movie"
>>

 No.467701

>>467699
>The "durable good" needs an army of IT personnel to keep it running 24/7/ along with legions of contractors.
ANSWER: Any capital good needs a "personnel to keep it running 24/7"

QUESTION: Does a Nuclear Station needs "personnel to keep it running 24/7"?
>>

 No.467702

>>467697
But the movie is not durable since it is deleted off your drive. Also most people subscribe to access a continual stream of new content Netflix creates.
It's called a streaming service because you paying for the service of constantly being entertained
>>

 No.467704

>>467700
But it's not durable. The client prevents you from keeping the movie for yourself. If you watch it again it streams a new copy of the movie all over again.
>>

 No.467705

>>467702
>But the movie is not durable since it is deleted off your drive.
QUESTION: Is recorded movie a time-durable good?
>>

 No.467707

>>467701
Your definition of service is something that cannot be separated from the producer correct?
Netflix movies cannot be separated from Netflix. It doesn't matter that theoretically it could.
If Netflix (the producer) goes down, your access to movies goes with it. This is your definition of a service not mine.
>>

 No.467708

>>467704
>But it's not durable. The client prevents you from keeping the movie for yourself.
QUESTION: Does recorded movie exist independently in time of the people who produced it?
>>

 No.467709

>>467706
Is something that disappears after it's used durable? Even if its by artificial means?
>>

 No.467710

>>467707
>Your definition of service is something that cannot be separated from the producer correct?
ANSWER: Correct.

>Netflix movies cannot be separated from Netflix.

QUESTION: Is recorded Netflix movie separated from the wage slaves who produced it?
>>

 No.467711

>>

 No.467714

>>467710
>ANSWER: Correct.
Then Netflix is a service. It's movies cannot be separated from Netflix.
>QUESTION: Is recorded Netflix movie separated from the wage slaves who produced it?
I'm not talking about the Production Studios that produce content. I'm talking about Netflix proper.
The commodity you buy from Netflix cannot be separated from them. Same with Google, and even Apple.
>>

 No.467715

>>467709
>Is something that disappears after it's used durable?
QUESTION: Does a movie record "disappear" from this world when you finish watching it?
>>

 No.467716

>>467713
Your access to it disappears. You cannot consume said commodity any longer even if others can.
>>

 No.467717

>>

 No.467718

>>467714
>I'm not talking about the Production Studios that produce content.
ANSWER: Productive character of labor is determined in the production process. If labor in the production process produces time-durable use value, then the surplus value of such labor can be accumulated and used for further reproduction.
>>

 No.467720

>>467716
>Your access to it disappears.
ANSWER: But the movie record is still there on a Netflix server, time-durable.
>>

 No.467721

>>467718
The employees at Netflix proper do not make movies. They make the service. To own the several dozen movies an average person watches would be far more expensive than the monthly fee Netflix charges.
People pay to watch a movie, just like they pay a ticket in a theater. Once you've watched a movie in a theater you cannot watch it again without buying another ticket. No one but you is foolish enough to think one is buying a durable good when you visit a theater. When you finish watching a movie in a theater you are left with nothing. The business model of Netflix is the same. You are twisting yourself in rhetorical pretzels to win a argument and it is taking you to bizarre places.
>>

 No.467722

>>467720
The commodity was to watch movies for one month. That time limit is arbitrarily, it could be set to immediately after the movie plays.
Something that disappears after you use it is not durable, even if the non durability is artificial.
>>

 No.467723

>>467720
Yes movies are durable, I agree. Netflix is not selling movies. They are leasing them in a way that they cannot be separated from. Which is a service by your own definition.
>>

 No.467725

>>467721
>The employees at Netflix proper do not make movies. They make the service.
The facts are:
- Movie record is time-durable and is a product of productive labor.
- Netflix software platform that you use to watch this movie record is too time-durable and so a product of productive labor.

Both productive labors created surplus value that collective capitalist called "Netflix" now accumulates by selling you this time-durable movie record through its time-durable software platform for money that you got as a payment for creating (or facilitating creation of) surplus value for some other capitalist.
>>

 No.467726

>>467724
Yeah, you know cars are durable goods too but no one thinks cab rides are. You're a brainlet that has some obsession with your snowflake vulgar interpretation Marx and will absolutely torture and straight up fabricate what Marx said and meant.
In short here's why you're wrong:

<Services being unproductive labor comes from Smith not Marx


<Every single movie on Netflix can be bought and owned but no one does that because that's not what Netflix is for.


<And no, using durable goods in the process of a service doesn't transform a service into a durable good.

Goddamn you are stupid.
>>

 No.467727

>>

 No.467728

>>

 No.467729

>>467726
>Every single movie on Netflix can be bought and owned but no one does that because that's not what Netflix is for.
If you can get the movie record then wtf are paying Netflix for lol?

>And no, using durable goods in the process of a service doesn't transform a service into a durable good.

You're like a broken record

QUESTION: Is a piece of software called "Netflix" that runs on some server farm time-durable?

QUESTION: Are road that you drive on time-durable?
>>

 No.467730

*roads
>>

 No.467731

>>467726
>Goddamn you are stupid.
you just wasted 5 (five) hours replying to him. guess what does that make you
>>

 No.467733

>>467731
yes lol, 5 (five) hours and still no arguments, only incoherent screechings about how dared I to contradict the Prophet by using Smithian definition of productive/unproductive labor
>>

 No.467734

>>467731
I regret nothing, I wanted to force him to show what he was making these inane arguments on. No I know.
>>

 No.467735

>>467733
DUMB AND PROUD
>>

 No.467736

File: 1679347713952.jpeg ( 21.07 KB , 474x355 , shades.jpeg )

>>467735
keep seething, still no arguments

Another day - Another bunch of dogmoids BTFOd
>>

 No.467737

>>467736
>No arguments
>Services are productive labor yet the largest corporations are service based.
>Uh well what actually Netflix sells are durable goods.
Okay buddy, you just stay winning alright.
>>

 No.467738

>>467737
*Services aren't productive
>>

 No.467739

>>467736
>Did my bull headed insistence that I'm right get on your nerves? Checkmate.
I kneel
>>

 No.467740

>>467737
Why does the size of an operation mean that services are productive? What are you fucking high?

Netflix doesn't produce t6he commodity they are like a grocery store. they purchase the commodity and sell it at market. Holy fuck you are dumb.
>>

 No.467741

>>467740
That doesn't make what they sell a durable good like you keep insisting.
Regardless you're a brainlet that thinks PMC means people that produce unproductive labor and that somehow makes them a different class.
>>

 No.467742

>>467740
>Why does the size of an operation mean that services are productive?
Because they could have only gotten that big if Netflix was productive labor. How could an enterprise of unproduced labor get that big?
>>

 No.467743

>>467742
>Because they could have only gotten that big if Netflix was productive labor.
Entire banking sector proves this wrong.
>>

 No.467744

>>467742
>How could an enterprise of unproduced labor get that big?
How could have Lehman Brothers got that "big"?
>>

 No.467750

>>467744
>Too productive to fail
>>

 No.467751

>>467743
Banking is a service too dumbass.
>>

 No.467752

>>467743
>Banking isn't capitalist.
You just keep proving how wrong Adam Smith was over and over again.
>>

 No.468022

Yet another school shooting. Y'all going to meme this one away too?
>>

 No.468048

File: 1679978159023.jpg ( 104.6 KB , 1280x1280 , IMG_20230328_113435_774.jpg )

>>468022
Go back to reddit. Pic related was the shooter. Undoubtedly one of yours
>>

 No.468050

>>468048
And? Why would that fact stop support for gun control. Not one of you assholes will actually say anything that's a plausible political strategy. You're all a joke you know that.
Banning ARs, which weren't even legal until the 2000's. They banned the Tommy Gun for similar reasons and no one even gives a fuck now.
>>

 No.468051

>>468050
*Banning ARs, which weren't even legal until the 2000's, would be more than enough.
>>

 No.468052

>>468051
>Please. Give us your guns. We promise we'll protect you while letting you have all your rights
Ok glowfag
>>

 No.468053

File: 1679981534617.jpg ( 106.94 KB , 919x1024 , 1679978910893547m.jpg )

Aged well
>>

 No.468054

File: 1679981930429.mp4 ( 17.9 MB , 480x360 , albania.mp4 )

>>

 No.468059

File: 1679998941894.png ( 365.56 KB , 568x648 , 1679971101344861.png )

When will Canada ban assault knives???
>>

 No.468094

>>467211
>Having a gun ownership cutoff of 18-and-under would, I shit you not, prevent more mass shootings than a 21-and-up limit would.

(me) again. Our latest mass shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting) has underlined this point again. Shooter was 28.
>>

 No.468095

>>468053

Like 99% of these shootings are committed by men, but the one time a transman specifically does it it proves something to you?

It's just the same blind lash-out violence Americans keep committing. If it was political violence that would be good actually.
All workers should be armed, how they feel about their parts is irrelevant.
>>

 No.468098

File: 1680070547078.jpg ( 83.14 KB , 1080x343 , IMG_20230329_131359.jpg )

>>468095
This faggot was real salt of the earth, anon
>>

 No.468099

>>468098

And there were loads of guys who worked retail and committed mass shootings. Whatever you're trying to say here, it's fucking gay. The guns stay.
>>

 No.468118

>>468052
>Banning the gun specifically designed to slaughter civilians is a CIA plot guies!
Cry moar ya dumbass gun but.
>>

 No.468120

>>468095
>but the one time a transman
hey, watch yourself man thing

it's called trans-hooman
>>

 No.468121

>>468099
Agree. if it's a mutually exclusive choice between letting a few mentally ill troons have guns or disarming everyone, then I'd choose letting the troons have guns.
>>468118
This isn't reddit. You will get no upvoots for your milquetoast MSNBC fed opinions here
>>

 No.468122

>>468118
I have to side with >>468121
That type of gun-debate, is a ruse.
If you start talking about the nature of tools, you got got, tools are inert objects.

The real debate is about who's allowed to wield tools, and for what purpose.

If only the organized proletariat wields weapons to enforce it's political and economic interests, it's very easy to implement socialism. And it's easy to justify this politically because the proletarian interest is very nearly identical to democracy, because the proletariat encompasses most people.

The capitalist ruling class of course they want that no weapons should be wielded unless it's for the enforcement of their interests. And it's very difficult to justify this politically because that is indistinguishable from tyranny. For that reason they can't be open about their intentions, they try to use manipulation, deception and diversion of attention, as means to gain consent for shifting fire-power towards the enforcement of their interests.

So there is no reason to accept any of their premises in this debate.

The maximalist goal for Socialists is a highly organized proletariat that is heavily armed, well trained and unopposed by any other force. We want any and all weapons at the disposal of enforcing the interests of the proletariat and that includes nukes and future scifi weapons. And we would like the Bourgeoisie to be disarmed.

Of course maximalist goals aren't always realistic, so we support the political positions that are the closest and most compatible.

Of course this shouldn't be interpreted as giving individual people nukes. Nor does it mean that immature children should have guns, or mentally unstable people would be allowed to pilot a helicopter gunship. Of course as with any tool-use sanity checks apply, which means training and discipline is mandatory. Neither the bourgeoisie nor the proletariat seeks to arm people that are ill suited for wielding weapons. Nobody is actually arguing for shooting up schools or other public venues, that's just an imaginary opponent for a political narrative.

Of course there is the question of interpersonal conflicts that aren't political, if many people are armed, no amount of discipline, training and judiciousness with granting the possession of weapons, will fix this. But the same can also be said for the attempt of universally disarming the population. The police isn't superhuman that will never shoot in error, anybody looking at police violence statistics (especially in the US) can come to that conclusion. Banning the possession of weapons also doesn't mean that people will comply with it. So if you seek to further reduce the number of gunshot victims with realism in mind, the conclusion must be that because firearms exist it's time to push for the development of every-day wearable clothing that can stop at least low caliber bullets.

Something that already exists is bullet-proof backpacks for kids that have an armor plate. Before you roll your eyes at this being a sign of dystopia, there is literally no reason why everyday objects like this shouldn't double as a protective measure. Armor plates that can stop up to medium powered rifle ammo, can be made from relatively light weight and affordable materials, that would hardly compromise the functionality of a backpack. Making people less vulnerable must also be considered as an effective measure to reduce violence.
>>

 No.468126

>>468121
>Muh Redditor
t. childless NEET
>>

 No.468127

>>468121
>This isn't reddit. You will get no upvoots for your milquetoast MSNBC fed opinions here
>No way could anyone be genuinely concerned about little kids getting ventilated every month while learning their ABCs. It's all virtue signaling.
You'll understand if you ever have kids, or sex.
>>

 No.468138

>>468127
>Backwards rationalize spasming your micropenis into some ungrateful (likely fat and betattooed) roastie because pulling out is too hard when you're thirsty
>double down on shit lib takes
You're practically a woman
>>

 No.468141

>>468138
>Kids getting killed every month is just a liberal wedge issue because uh my wife is ugly…I think.
Calm down ma'am, you're hysterical.
>>

 No.468143

>>468141
Are you still wearing a mask too?
>>

 No.468145

Children and teens are more likely to die by guns than anything else
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/29/health/us-children-gun-deaths-dg/index.html
>>

 No.468150

>cnn
fuck off with your muh children shit, Caren

funny how just as Uncle Same prepares for war, you want to take our guns away
>>

 No.468162

File: 1680171704029.mp4 ( 855.24 KB , 640x360 , sYfKX_auhOZboDgC.mp4 )

>>

 No.468184

>>468150
>Noooooo it's not true, everything is a psyop.
>>

 No.468189

>>467069
Firearms have been widely owned in the US for centuries.
Semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines have been owned in the US for over a century.
Semi-automatic shotguns have been owned in the US for over a century.
Semi-automatic pistols have been owned in the US for over a century.
For most of the US's history it was easier to get a gun than it is today. There were less identity checks and less scrutiny.
School shootings in the form of spree killings, got their start in the 90s and escalated in the 2000s.

Clearly firearms ownership and spree killings are not connected inherently. And if anything there is a large lack of association.
Firearms are just a means by which disaffected psychos express their insanity. The drive that turns normal crackpots and sociopaths into resentful spree killers is the issue that needs to be tracked down. Why now? Why today? What has changed to make this happen? Why wasn't this happening before? What were we doing right before that we aren't today?
Those are the questions to answer, not "how do we take away guns?". Otherwise the same madness will still be in place, and will express itself through anti-social violence in other ways.
>>

 No.468190

>>467119
Manifest destiny would have still happened.
Canadians and Australians used their standard police forces and militias to wipe out or crush the Natives first before sending in settlers. The US just preferred to leave that to the settlers unless necessary.
>>

 No.468513

File: 1681109439943-0.jpg ( 280.17 KB , 1080x1289 , IMG_20230407_171017.jpg )

File: 1681109439943-1.jpg ( 364.39 KB , 1080x1271 , IMG_20230407_171143.jpg )

>>

 No.468522

>>468189
>Firearms have been widely owned in the US for centuries.
Yes, because the US is a settler colonialist nation. That's why gun rights aren't anywhere near as strong inside European colonial nations, where they exist at all.
>>

 No.468526

>>468522
That isn't relevant to my post.
It doesn't matter 'why' the US had tons of firearms in it, it only matters that it did without significant numbers of spree killings.
So what changed to trigger them?
>>

 No.468527

>>468522
>Give up your guns because of settler colonialism
Glow harder
>>

 No.468547

>>468527
>Let kids get slaughtered so porky can have right wing death squads.
t. capitalist stooge
>>

 No.468548

>>468547
<the left is so impotent and full of pussies that they refuse to arm themselves in current year
ebin post comrade
>>

 No.468551

>>468547
capitalists would have their death squads irrespective if the guns are banned or not

ability to own guns actually makes death squads much less effective
one of the best things about burgerland
>>

 No.468552

>>467561
You can reproduce the machine code of a computer program for basically nothing. It's not like the computer itself is sweating at the laborious process of copying a file. It's what the computer is designed to do.

You're an idiot who knows nothing about a computer, a commodity, economics, or frankly anything that concerns reality. You want to reify "information" as some sort of substance in of itself, which is not what information is.

t. compsci nerd from a family of compsci nerds who is aware of information theory and cybernetics. They don't teach CS properly, intentionally because managers don't want computer programmers smart enough to actually upset the beast, and anyone who is independently capable is either co-opted or mentally destroyed by ideology and the system.
>>

 No.468553

I'm sad to see this thread took a dive into greater retardation, almost entirely because of essentialist ideology and confusion about basic facts and reality. None of you know anything about anything or why people would want a gun in the first place. If you can't answer in the context of a materialist political concept why someone should have a gun, you shouldn't have a gun and wouldn't know where to point it if you wanted to "fight tyrants". Marx in writing about gun control and the citizens' militia assumes you're capable enough to possess political sense and think about what you're going to do with a gun. He isn't advocating a "me wantee" theory of gun rights, or really giving a shit about any legal right saying your gun is kosher. The workers at the time often had no gun rights, because they had no substantial defense of their rights at all. Any right they had to their weapons was provisional, but at the time, states were limited in their ability to confiscate guns en masse. The idea that cities could be turned into antiseptic violence-free zones like that future in Demolition Man was fantastical, not that there weren't efforts of states to try that. To confiscate guns from nominally free men who have largely avoided violence in their lives would be both a waste of time for the state and a remarkable tyranny, and the state has always had a priority list of who they wish to disarm. The only reason the present gun control is pushed is a prelude to confiscation of everything else the middle class owns, and it has less to do with the gun itself than the right to self-defense that is implied. That's not a legal right - by liberal theory, you have no right to defend yourself whatsoever - but it is something so ancient and essential to the concept of a democratic society that telling someone "you are not allowed to fight back and must endure a lifetime of abuse and humiliation" would be seen as a barbaric outrage. It took generations of social engineering to convince people that anything we do in education and socialization is normal. Someone 200 yaers ago would look at what we do today and say that shit is more fucked up than Jim Crow (and they were perfectly aware that things like that are what you do to slave populations, that are unfit for any free society). Seeing as Jim Crow is the model a lot of these people have for conditioning slaves, consciously followed in every humiliation the school imposes on students, it isn't surprising. It's also not surprising that today's gun control debate comes from a history of confiscating guns from the "bad people", particularly black radicals who were an explicit target of Nixon. They saw a "black messiah" as the most likely threat to social order in that time, and they know their history and why they would come to that conclusion, and this was not simply about race as an essence or a historical fact, but a proxy for the underclass and what motivated the vanguard of racism in the late 20th century. Racism could no longer present an argument of genuine "white supremacy" or identity as something to protect, because the ruling ideas were that all Americans and the whole world would be dispossessed. The new racism is nothing more than total self-abasement and cuckoldry, and the most degenerate specimens of the white race are little better than those they declared to be living abortions, just smart enough to make the rest of us suffer and indulge in their typical faggotry.
>>

 No.468554

>>468553
>you shouldn't have a gun
nah, fuck off back to canada, cuck

>and wouldn't know where to point it if you wanted to "fight tyrants"

nah, I would point it at you and pull the trigger, because you're a wannabe tyrant who wants to take guns away
>>

 No.468562

>>467556
>all human activity is productive that is paid money for
So the arbitrary whims of the people who have the most money decide what's un/productive ?
I think not.

Cockshott's version makes more sense
https://invidious.snopyta.org/watch?v=IVDkFMGxbX8
>>

 No.468566

>>468554
I don't care about the political "debate" in this country. That you're accepting this as the spectrum of permissible ideas is a sign that you wouldn't be able to use a gun if you had fighter jets and nukes backing you up. It's the thinking of people who are trained to be impotent.

You'll all so ridiculously fucked that it's sad to watch. This gong show of a country is going to hell and the world will not be a livable place, unless you like slavery and sadism.
>>

 No.468590

>>467136
why are you defending our hitlerite establishment abrogating our constitutional rights? Stalin said that Communists should take up and defend typically bourgeois rights because the bourgeois no longer has any interest in them - he was right. The first and second amendments are excellent weapons for Communists.

>>467134
>settler colonialism is continual process that provides original capital for capitalism.

you are deranged. Absolute nonsense, nobody is being colonized in the USA right now.
>>

 No.468610

>>468590
>why are you defending our hitlerite establishment abrogating our constitutional rights? Stalin said that Communists should take up and defend typically bourgeois rights because the bourgeois no longer has any interest in them - he was right.
Maybe the way to go about raising this issue is to suggest bourgeois specific gun bans combined with mandatory gun ownership for the proletariat. It's sort of a troll-move because it would be in the material interests of small arms manufacturers to support this, and the political movement that wants to ban guns could be painted as opposing gun bans for the ruling class.

>nobody is being colonized in the USA right now.

I think you are mostly correct about this, but the Island of Hawaii could technically bee seen as a US colony.
>>

 No.468619

>>468566
>muh nukes means you don't need guns stupid prole
nah, fuck off
why can't you win in ukraine with your nukes retard? because nukes is the weapon of last resort

against death squads and wannabe tyrants my shotgun is enough
>>

 No.468620

>>468619
no anon clearly if there's ever an armed workers insurgency the government will just nuke their own cities
its not even a weapon of last resort in this scenario
the ruling class would rather flee and let the revolutionaries win, and hope they fail so they can return, than fucking nuke their own cities
theres no fucking way even the most psycopathic bateman tier booj can justify that shit in the history books
>>

 No.468625

>>468620
>no anon clearly if there's ever an armed workers insurgency the government will just nuke their own cities
Armed workers can't easily be rounded up by fascist storm troopers and marched into a concentration camp, that's the point of an armed proletariat.

I doubt that the bourgeoisie can really separate their wealth and power from civilizational structures like cities. But you are correct that a competent revolution has to secure the nukes. Maybe less so because of a crazy bourgeoisie trying to commit nuclear suicide, but rather because somebody might try to sell nukes on the black market during political ruptures. There's a lot of common ground across the ideological spectrum where everybody agrees to avoid creating a bunch of warlords with a nuke. So securing the nukes is probably less difficult than you think.
>>

 No.468630

>>468610
>Maybe the way to go about raising this issue is to suggest bourgeois specific gun bans combined with mandatory gun ownership for the proletariat. It's sort of a troll-move because it would be in the material interests of small arms manufacturers to support this, and the political movement that wants to ban guns could be painted as opposing gun bans for the ruling class.

unrealistic and there are way more proles than bourgeois, you may as well just make gun ownership mandatory for everyone.

>the Island of Hawaii could technically bee seen as a US colony.

In what way is colonialism actively occurring there?
>>

 No.468634

>>468630
>unrealistic and there are way more proles than bourgeois, you may as well just make gun ownership mandatory for everyone.
you didn't get it, that was sort of the point.

>In what way is colonialism actively occurring there?

I haven't been paying enough attention to give you details but not that long ago there was a bit of a political rupture and the US was at some point considering about sending in the military to deal with the "uppity locals". And that was reminiscent of colonial times.
>>

 No.468635

>>468634
>I haven't been paying enough attention to give you details but not that long ago there was a bit of a political rupture and the US was at some point considering about sending in the military to deal with the "uppity locals". And that was reminiscent of colonial times.
Just accept my bombastic edgy takes, ok!
>>

 No.468640

File: 1681401118086.png ( 241.76 KB , 525x546 , 1676575427657401.png )

My fucking state just banned assault weapons. Banning assault rifles is window dressing for shit caused by alienation of capitalism. To answer, op, no it really isn't. Obviously people shouldn't be able to own private bazookas, but, I think this fear of assault weapons is irrational. Soon they will ban our handguns too.
>>

 No.468642

>>468640
Oh, I thought you wanted to beat the right wing fashists. I guess you were a crypto-chud all along
>>

 No.468643

>>468640
A bazooka is a recoilless large-ish caliber man-portable cannon. It used to be an infantry based anti-material weapon. It has been depreciated by shouldered rocket-launchers. It's only useful for attacking tanks and helicopters, or other stuff that has a lot of armor. It's very difficult to aim it at anything smaller than vehicles. So shooting people with it is like really hard, and you'd likely miss. You also can't use it to destroy buildings because it's primarily designed to make holes in thick armor, and buildings don't collapse if there's a little hole in the wall. So the potential for abuse is somewhat limited. The reason for banning public ownership might be more along the lines that the ammo goes bad relatively quickly and if people tried to use one of those after it rotted in their basement for 20 years, they would likely blow them selves up with it.

Many socialists consider an armed proletariat as a people's army to be the optimal military strategy. That way you only need a relatively small professional military that operates the complex high tech weapons. The risk of creating a politically influential military industrial complex like in the US would also be lower. The people's army would also be doing their own gunsmithing. This people's army would likely mostly use handguns, rifles, shotguns and hand-grenades, but not assault weapons. Because the purpose of the people's army is not open-combat. It's supposed to be a vast low intensity military force that goes into hiding once a invasion from capitalist powers happens. It will then lurk in the shadows and take potshots at invading forces to make it excruciatingly difficult to operate, while the professional wing of the military focuses on deep strikes to take out the war-profiteering capitalist ruling class who ordered the invasion.

The thinking here is that the large proletarian mass that takes potshots from all directions will scare away the officers of the invading military. There wouldn't be a clear front where they can order the grunts towards hurling them selves into the embrace of death, wile they them selves stay tucked away where it's safe. And that means the invading soldiers would be without overseers and can desert or switch sides more easily.

Once the faction of the ruling class that ordered the invasion of the socialist country is taken out by deep strikes, the capitalists that are next in line for power kinda ow the socialist country for clearing out their rivals, and will be more likely to negotiate a peace. This will create political chaos for a short while, and the attacking military force will get disoriented by conflicting orders from a fracturing political structure. That will represent an opportunity to absorb a chunk of them, specifically the proletarian part that only joined the military via financial pressure, which would reduce the post-war labor force of the attacking capitalist power. The foreign proletariat within the grasp of the attacking capitalist power would gain more political bargaining power which also means politics would shift more towards peace.
>>

 No.468650

>>468643
ignoring the fact that the mere political pressure of an already armed proletariat might be more effective than their use of said arms in combat
everything you're saying might be right but there is still no justification for banning guns beyond liberal bullshit and leftoid defeatism
as anons have pointed out numerous times in the thread widespread mass killings are a relatively recent phenomenon and gun ownership has little to do with it
the only counter ive seen so far is some variation of "who cares, you dont need your guns chud" to "yeah but its the best we can do lol"
it constantly evades the real cause of the problem and ultimately reeks of the same counterproductive attitude of collaboration with bourgeois parties that western leftists have shackled themselves to for decades now
>>

 No.468654

>>468650
>ignoring the fact that the mere political pressure of an already armed proletariat might be more effective than their use of said arms in combat
everything you're saying might be right but there is still no justification for banning guns beyond liberal bullshit and leftoid defeatism

I agree about your point regarding deterrence.

I think that if you want democratized firepower, you also need democratized ammo production, and assault-rifles use too much ammo, it really doesn't scale up. Consider a people's army is about 30-60% of the population under arms. Training and firearm proficiency maintenance over a lifetime for assault-rifles takes about 50k rounds per person. And you need to have the capacity to surge supply to 500 rounds per month for every person, for it to count towards credible deterrence. For a moderately large country of 100mil population with 30% to 60% under arms you need to produce 1.5 to 3 trillion bullets for their training roughly every 50 years. The logistics trail appears un-realistic, so assault rifles aren't interesting. Let me remind you that the production needs to be done via a large number of local workshops to count as fully democratized, to the point where it becomes impractical to undo democratic access to firearms. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns require about 25x times less ammo which makes it just about doable.

I could see the point to oppose assault-rifle bans in order to avoid a legal precedent, but not in order to actually arm people with those. Assault rifles come with advanced tactics, and most people will not be willing to learn that. So it's kinda pointless even if you could stem the logistics.

My motivation is the political utility. I see a population that is armed as a population that is harder to bully. The other benefit that i see is equalization of the capacity for violence in the personal space. And the cost benefit ratio doesn't favor assault rifles for either.
>>

 No.468684

>>468620
You still think the rulers are on the defensive. This is the pretense states always claim - that their position is natural and everyone else is inherently aggressing against them. The state and those who rule are always on the offensive, and this is basic fucking politics. It is understood to anyone who knows politics that the state has a legal monopoly on violent force, which it uses very often towards the aims it values. The state's aggression, and the aggression of those who are beholden to the state and favor the state, is many orders of magnitude greater than the violence against the state.

Yes, they would nuke the cities, and the only reason to build nuclear weapons is to make this threat to the people. Nuclear weapons in a conventional war are not terribly effective, because any competent commander will be hesitant to mass a lot of force within the blast radius. A well trained army will withstand a nuclear war. Pacifist civilians who are lied to constantly will not.
More than that though, nuclear weapons are the ultimate threat against seizing a city, or wiping out a population selected to die. Beyond that, there is likely a situation where the nukes will be launched offensively, in order to finish depopulation and rebuild the cities as the rulers wanted them to be - as places without us. The rulers moved everything they cared about underground, to remote bunkers, and anyone of value will not be destroyed. The cities become death traps to cage the serfs, and when it's time to kill them, you just put barriers in front of every exit. There is some sick humor here - the French Revolution involved workers and lumpens fighting on street barricades, and the endgame of mass politics is that the same barricades are placed in front of those fleeing for their life. There will be nowhere to hide, and the rulers want it that way. There comes a point where the rulers extracted enough torture from the superfluous lumpen population, and have sorted humanity. They protect the ones they want to keep, kill off most of the rest in cities, and mop up the depopulated countryside. It's very easy and would be the obvious way to end the siege against humanity - just as the inventors of nuclear weapons intended. The victorious faction will be the very scientists who jumped up and down like maniacs once their "wonder weapon" was realized. They knew what side of the war they're on to a man and woman.

It's so cute that you think only about "the narrative". The history books would only be read by those who won. The losers would all be dead or enslaved, and the terms of slavery would likely forbid them from reading history books. Of course, you yourself probably haven't read a real history book that isn't ancient. There's a history of the more occulted and secret world where humanity goes on, and bits of that world come out, but people like you are the worst sort who act as if the narratives made by trained liars are the truth. It's all so Satanic.
>>

 No.468685

I'm not saying resistance to this is impossible, just that some people refuse to acknowledge basic realities about the intent of nuclear weapon doctrine. In the 1950s, the atomic bomb was just another weapon - a bigger bomb than the conventional bombs that levelled cities, but a weapon with particular uses. The Chinese of the 1950s were ready to fight a war without nukes and didn't act like Hitlerian pussies who pray for their "wonder weapons". Chinese doctrine was set up with the expectation that they would need to survive a nuclear attack and make occupation of the country an impossibility. They built god-knows how many underground tunnels in preparation for this, and a plan to fight an insurgency. That was one of the only things that stopped the China Lobby from trying to reconquer the place outright, and the smarter heads in American command saw that.
>>

 No.468686

I believe resistance is actually very likely, but it remains to be seen if resistance can actually win until all cards are out. That's one reason for engineering a civil war - have two factions both directed at groups who are first on the "selected to die" list, who then reconcile once they get enough of their targets dead. What would determine the full outcome of that depends on whether anything independent of the two planned factions can exist, and the nature of those who have no stake whatsoever in this faggotry the bastards have engineered. If they are ideological retards who refuse to engage with basic shit, they're a liability to any resistance and will fold to the liberals, or they become full on death-cultists which is what Infrared-Maupin types are becoming.

It really comes down to how willing people are to enforce the purge mechanisms, and the ability of the purged to make this as expensive as possible. The advantage the people hold is that we're used to surviving on next to nothing as far as quality of life. Most of our lives are spent fending off the struggle-struggle-struggle that the institutions put us through, and the more struggle that an active war would entail. If there is this war and purge situation, the people will have no loyalty to the peacetime institutions. It's already the case that no one trusts the hospitals if they have any sense, and they're seeing the institutions transform into things which overtly cast them out. I am telling everyone selected to die right now that they need to escape the institutions and never see such things as anything but an enemy. There may be an attempt to construct new institutions, but these will all be fake and set up with clear distinction between those selected to live and those selected to die.
>>

 No.468687

The win condition for the resistance is not some victory where they seize the state, but surviving the onslaught with any remnant of independence intact. The purges can only last so long before they are exhausted of fuel and morale. The True Believers are full eugenic creed with a billion year contract, blooded and never changing, but there are only so many True Believers. A lot of people are going to see that this purge (a) will eventually come for them, because the purgers only want True Believers to live, and (b) is absurdly expensive, counterproductive, stupid, and doesn't produce anything good, and (c) would lose its power if the True Believers are the only ones willing to fight. The way around (c) has been to push as many mind controlled and insane people in the way, and that's something they've accomplished with the anarchoid left and the more faggy elements of the right. There are only so many such people though, and I don't see the effectivity of the scumbag contingent being what they hoped it would be. There is too much residual decency to keep the game going without money and lots of threats, and too many people already have seen that if they withdraw their support or halfass the purging, the purge and the war stops short of full victory. Some of the damned will live, and that is as much of a win as we can get.
>>

 No.468688

Bear in mind that if it comes to a civil war, that will be the end of any reconciliation between those selected to live and those selected to die. Those who survive the war on the latter side will never, ever trust the institutions, "revolutionary" or otherwise. They have no reason to ever believe any government, and no government will or can give assurances to restore any trust in institutions. The survivors of the damned will only be able to form their own institutions, if they are allowed, and they will continue to suffer under the pressure of the ruling institutions which are antagonistic towards them. Very likely the terms of "keeping the peace" will be a total segregation of those selected to die, and many selected to die becoming the reserve army of slavery. With the alternative being maximal torture and death in absolute terror, there is only slavery or suicide. Enough stubbornness will prevent suicide, and the maximal torture thing will be difficult without resuming the purge that was somehow miraculously defeated. So that will mean those who were truly defeated - us of the damned - will be allowed to live on the most meager terms possible. That is what we will be reduced to - arguing just how bad the coming slavery will be. There will be false promises of freedom and manumission, but that has always been a lie and will be doubly so after the struggle. They were never going to let us in their society.
>>

 No.468709

Why didn't the Albanians have this many mass shootings?
>>

 No.468715

File: 1681674371776.jpg ( 247.64 KB , 1080x1237 , IMG_20230417_023028.jpg )

>>

 No.468720

File: 1681695128353.jpg ( 166.46 KB , 1170x1113 , 20230413_163143.jpg )

>>

 No.468728

>>468715
The Big Retard is right for once.

Unique IPs: 76

[Return][Catalog][Top][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 ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome