/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Money by it's very nature is universal equivalency to all other commodities on the market otherwise it wouldn't be money. Regardless if it's fiat or not.

>>467822
>Money by it's very nature is universal equivalency to all other commodities on the market otherwise it wouldn't be money.
Ok that's a very strong stance.
The implication of what you are saying is that at the moment none of the major currencies at present are really money, because they're not an equivalency to ALL commodities that exist.
Do you agree with that ?

The money form can be any arbitrary thing, but it is always pointing to something substantive that is contested. It isn't wholly arbitrary - conjuring money out of money brings consequences.

It had been understood that there was nothing special about gold or silver or any particular substance, but gold and silver standards represented different interests in society, with the gold being hoarded by the very rich and silver being used by commoners. This division goes back to Roman times and coinage at least. So too would currencies like the "greenback" represent certain interests.

It is long understood in any form of statecraft that you need to control the bank to truly be rich. This is what the leading capitalists did, and what the subordinate capitalists clamored for - to control the bank. There is always some interest that is understood to represent Mammon or however you would personify money itself in some spiritual sense, and that's what someone looking to win in finance seeks and orients their behavior around. Obviously the gold itself isn't useful for some intrisic quality, which is what early political economists figured out. For Marx, money is a social relation. For others, money is a useful contrivance by interests who can use it to manipulate behavior, within certain parameters. It really depends on where you stand in society. Those grasping for power tend to look for some avenue that will let them seize the state, while those who hold the state generally seek to arrest that and invent all manner of scams to keep the graspers chasing after phantoms. The lower classes are told to keep their head down until they're put back into serfdom, and no one really wants to see serfdom end. If it truly did end, it would be nearly impossible for human society to produce, because the incentives of the producers would see excess and large concentrations of wealth as too dangerous in any circumstance. The aim of the lower classes has always been consistent, and it is not a grand aim - they want their shit back and to never see this beast ruling over them ever again. Don't ask them how they're going to do it or maintain the situation, they just want this entire apparatus out of their lives forever. That's all they ever wanted. They don't want to be part of it or sully themselves with such a ridiculous pursuit as taking over the world. The world was theirs by simple virtue of existence until it was taken from them by a willful actor. It is one reason why economic mystifications are so common - it is because to the common producer, money has always been this unwelcome imposition that they are made to abide, when the real things they wanted are not and never can be freely exchangible. You cannot actually conjure with money alone the hypothetical water vendor in the desert, nor can this vendor supply you with anything as if the entire substance of the universe were fungible. For the commoner, money was always a scam imposed by something alien to them. If people could deal in the things they actually wanted in the first place, it doesn't involve mechanisms like debt and the threat of creditors killing you, among many other things. But, debt exists for a reason, and it is not a reason that is fundamental to the universe. It ultimately comes from us, or at least certain humans who decided they were going to make us pay or else.

In the past, there would be at some point a reckoning of debts and some effort to sort out the house of finance, and a new deal would be struck that is much like the prior one, but with winners and losers. This didn't stop in modernity. There are new schemes - the central bank system that came up in 1913 is one, and what happened around 1970 is another. It was audacious yet again to do what happened in 2008 - literally treating capitalism like Whose Line Is It Anyway where the points don't matter - and to defend that they rolled out another thing in 2020, and we see more what this really was the whole time. All illusions are being destroyed, and there will be no going back. You'll see, if you manage to live through this century, the progressive revelation of the hideousness that was always lurking in humanity. We have already seen a lot of the rot come out, and we're just getting started. I doubt a society with a shred of decency can survive. There will only be whatever lot we cobble together, which will be snuffed out like a great game of whack a mole.

>>467825
They are though anon: All currency is equivalent to the exchange value of X if it wasn't equivalent then exchanges could not be made. MArxs goes over this specifically in chapter 1 of Das Kapital, actually.

The value of Y commodity is X and thus the value of money is X.

>>467901
Yeah but what about the universality question.
There isn't a single currency that allows you to exchange for all goods.

Like if you have dollars you cant buy Russian fish egs, if you have rubles you can't buy American alcoholic beverages, and so on.

>>467909
u know that you can exchange currencies right?

>>467910
Technically speaking if you need extra steps during trade, it's bartering. One might be tempted to reject the minor inconvenience of currency exchanges as a meaningful factor but this does have a point.

I think that before the US began spamming sanctions, the dollar was a universal currency in the true sense of the definition. However that place has now been vacated.

The question now becomes whether something else, will fill in the vacant spot. Does it require some kind of global authority to implement it, meaning it stays a vacant spot. Or will a new universal currency grow out of trade activity ?

>>467912
>Technically speaking if you need extra steps during trade, it's bartering.
wat lol
technically it is exactly the opposite - if the exchange is not mediated by an extra step of exchange for a universal equivalent - it is barter

>I think that before the US began spamming sanctions, the dollar was a universal currency in the true sense of the definition. However that place has now been vacated.
"true sense" means jack shit in the real world
any reserve currency is a universal equivalent

>Does it require some kind of global authority to implement it, meaning it stays a vacant spot.
all it requires is a global currency market where you can exchange any currency for any other

>it is the opposite - if the exchange is not mediated by an extra step of exchange for a universal equivalent - it is barter
You misunderstood. I was referring to the barter-trade-chains

If you have apples and you want shoes, but the cobbler doesn't want apples, and instead wants a pot.
You have to do extra steps. It can be as low as just one extra step, when the potter wants to trade a pot for apples, and you can go through a trade series of
apples -> pots -> shoes.

But you might need many more extra steps. Like
apples -> pots -> bricks -> arrows -> smoked-meat -> nuts -> shoes.
Universal currency prevents those barter trade chains.
apples -> Universal currency -> shoes

for the proletariat it looks like this
labor-power -> universal currency -> goods
obviously this is oversimplified to the point of being wrong but i don't want to get off-track too much.

If we had a universal currency on earth that would be the one that could be used to buy any good. Since you have to trade from one currency into another to get access to any good. You have to perform a barter-trade-chain.For example if You have dollars and want to buy Russian fish eggs, you have to go
dollars -> rubles -> Russian fish-egs

>any reserve currency is a universal equivalent
not anymore.

>all it requires is a global currency market where you can exchange any currency for any other
You could probably make that argument when the dollar was a universal currency, because any currency that was backed by sufficient dollar reserves could in effect function like a universal currency for most trade exchanges.
But this does not work anymore, now trades do require a barter chain when they cross certain trade-zones.

>>467923 meant for >>467915

Read Adam Smith

>>467945
Smith's theory of money was retarded even in his own time. Read Hudson and Graeber.

>>467954
Do you have a point?

>>467952
What even is smiths explanation of money? I have only read a small fraction of the man, but, marx's explanation makes pretty intuitive sense.

>>467957
That money descends from a means of making barter easier. Some of the most insane, autistic assumptions of neoclassical economics fundamentally flow from this evidence-free explanation. In reality, throughout history and among disparate cultures money has arisen over and over as a means of recording debts.

>>467966
You are correct that money didn't arise as a means to ease trade. Historically money tends to get implemented by the power of a state, however it still did make it easier to trade compared to bartering. You can't just ignore this because neoclassical economics has chosen to distort it for their money-origin myth. The story with debts is similar, money made it also easier to load people with debts. However for that to work you still needed a state to implement money.

Today we could barter again. It's relatively easy to calculate barter chains with a computer.
Initially exchanges would feel very strange, because the personal experience would follow this logic:

You give some to person A and as a result Person B gives you something in return.

Behind the scenes a computer program calculates, who has to give what to whom, in order for the most optimal barter outcome for everybody involved. I wonder why that doesn't exist yet it would be relatively simple to implement. Maybe it's being overlooked because of the limitations, "cyber-bartering" would only be practical as a second hand market, it can't really direct surplus for new production.

>>467966
This is really the crass version of Smith's thinking. Marx is describing Smith's thinking takes some liberties and puts words into his mouth - this is a trick Marx can artfully employ when he's attacking his opponents - while omitting necessary details that informed Smith's thinking. To believe it requires jumping to a conclusion about barter that wasn't even made at the time by anyone, and this conclusion is a "just-so" story that Germanic philosophy believed readily, but that would have been self-evidently incomplete to Smith's own philosophical understanding. That's why Smith is undertaking his investigation in the first place, and comparing past thought about money and property to what was his present.

It should be understood that Smith's specialty is moral philosophy, and so money is only valuable ultimately because it is a representation of something we at one time asserted to be true. We want this money because it is a representation of something we value morally, rather than money being intrinsically worth anything at all. If we took an amoral view of exchange, then we would only be looking at resource inflows and outflows, and the solution to that question is simple in any era. That's not what political economy entailed - it was inherently something that concerned rational agents which did place a moral stake in the value of money. They wanted their money to be worth something tangible, rather than simply valuing money for its own sake.

The theory of "natural barter" in Smith is misinterpreted to suggest that people just randomly decided they were going to exchange seashells because "human nature", for no apparent reason. This is an Austrian School bastardization, because Krauts can't into political economy. The "propensity to truck and barter" is not suggesting people just want to exchange things, but that people are by nature scheming with the resources at their disposal for gain, and we cannot deny that human beings engage in economic activity at some point. If we didn't have this inclination, it would not be possible to speak of money as a political instrument or a representation of some power over nature. It does not follow that this propensity is an absolute - there are mitigating factors - but the protofascistic mindset believed that what was natural is what was inevitable, and there could be no barrier or elaboration beyond that. That fascistic mindset was inherent in German idealism; and at the same time, it was demonstrated through language and history that such a philosophy could insinuate itself, if allowed and no one were allowed to refuse it. That didn't exist in 1776 in the way it would during the 19th century, but prior consideration of this idea existed among the reactionary philosophers, and the German idealists were very much reactionaries who hated any concept of democracy or liberty.

The first neoclassicals simply looked at Marx's conclusions and said "yes, this is exactly what we want - we want to liquidate the workers and we want to liquidate the failed capitalists, for the glory of the empire". It's not the sort of thing you're going to reason with. Marx himself is looking to his people and telling them that if capitalism continues as it has, the people in Marx's circle will be fucked. The neoclassical imperial economists - the smarter ones anyway - are saying "yes, we're coming for you bitches and you can't do shit about it". The pressure was put on, and by Marx's own thinking, the proletariat would in the long run be defeated. It was, within Marx's thinking, an inevitability, so long as the ruling interest maintained cohesion and could co-opt elements of the opposition, with an eye towards their long-term enemies. Those enemies were known to the classical liberals - the poor, the unwanted, those who didn't get with the program.

I hope this gets some of the idea across of what actually happened, since my account is scattered and has to be so. A full explanation would require a length treatise to connect the dots from A to B to C, and at every connection "ruthless criticism" can push people away from making the simplest understanding, while enshrining failed paradigms ad nauseum.

What Smith did lack was a history of anthropology or a theory of sociology. The latter did not exist as a formal discipline and there was very little in the record that could be described as "sociology" in the modern sense. It was something that was considered far out there, and sociology ran into complications when encountering the dominant Christian mindset of the time. Sociology necessarily implies that God or anything like it is a nonfactor, or possesses a very different nature from the Christian God.

>>467990
>The first neoclassicals simply looked at Marx's conclusions and said "yes, this is exactly what we want - we want to liquidate the workers and we want to liquidate the failed capitalists, for the glory of the empire". It's not the sort of thing you're going to reason with. Marx himself is looking to his people and telling them that if capitalism continues as it has, the people in Marx's circle will be fucked.
Dis be bullshitt with doomerist characteristics

Marx said that either the workers take power or it's the common ruin of all the contending classes. There are no alternative endings where the capitalists can win. The falling rate of profit represents their certain demise as a class holding power. The question for Marx is whether or not the working class takes over the means of production and civilization levels up to a new mode of production, or whether the capitalists drag society into the abyss.

>>467993
>There are no alternative endings where the capitalists can win.
says who? a 19th century philosophycel?

Alternative is capitalists dispose of all the useless proles and live in their own high-tech post-scarcity communist utopia happily ever after.

>>467990
didn't read lol

>>467993
Clearly the capitalists were not deterred by this, because they won and they're liquidating the workers without a care in the world.
If you thought this was about the workers as an inchoate mass somehow ruling, you failed the intelligence test badly. If you thought this was about the workers getting their shit back so they can actually live, then communist theory went about it in a very strange way, and did not meet the challenges the democratic force faced in any way we would regard as good.
It really starts with abandoning the idea of liberal rights which was the only thing that made revolution conceivable. If you don't have that, you don't have any revolution or anything at all. You've defeated your cause in the theory before you can speak of the people or any segment of them conducting a genuine revolution. If you had a concept of freedom that was intelligible to people as something relevant to their lives, then you would have a replacement for the liberal thinking of rights. If you're going to be a turbo who poo poos the idea of "rights" at all, then why the fuck should anyone have a revolution? It would be a fait accompli that the workers would lose. Marx assumed it would be the ruin of the contending classes, but this presumes the capitalist ever needed the worker for anything at all. Clearly the capitalists would consider the imposition of a slave society not just the best of all possible worlds, but a superior outcome over capitalism itself. Capitalism only begins as a concession to an insurgent class of commoners who were able to assert themselves as a political force, but who had yet to coalesce into a modern bureaucratic state. The liberals established that bureaucratic state, and from there steadily forced back the democratizing tendency that inspired revolutions. Very often, the liberals were only half-successful in proliferating their ideas. Until the 20th century, liberalism was almost entirely an English and French idea, and sort of adopted by the Latin American colonies when they weren't ruled by some rando caudillo.
So often these narratives about history require believing that liberalism was the "universal idea" after 1776 or 1789/1791, and that was never the case. Liberalism in any form we would appreciate as liberal was always on shaky ground. The interest of the commoner bourgeois was not inherently "liberal" in the first place, as there were members of the bourgeoisie who were fine with the old order or sought to limit liberal progress. The liberal vanguard themselves were not a uniform movement with a singular idea, but a patchwork of competing interests that all had divergent ideas of how to move forward. Even the basic concept of "liberty" was suspect from an early stage, as the imperial utilitarians did not have any belief in "rights" or that humans were anything other than animals to be managed. This was evident as early as Malthus.

I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you, but the idea that you're going to ride a wave of inexorable revolution is noob-tier and stupid. 1848 showed how well that goes, but then that often misunderstands why 1848 happened in the first place and why it unfolded the way it did.

So right now, the capitalists not only feel they're winning, but actively seek the destruction of "society" - or rather, the replacement of society with an image of themselves imposed on the world forever. Since they're still living and having the time of their life, I don't see how this qualifies as the ruin of the contending classes. It is the ruin of the failed capitalists and the middle class, but they knew the rules of the game, and rather than ask themselves for one moment if this was really what they wanted to do, most of the middle class screamed for MAGA and similar faggotry, because they don't know anything else and don't even want to hear that there can be anything else. The world where something else was possible was foreclosed after 1913, and those who deny the centrality of eugenics are enablers of the rot. If you want a world where this doesn't happen, you're asking a question about eugenics at the least, since that is clearly the motivation of actors in the past century. You don't want to talk about it and shriek like a retard whenever the word is uttered, because you're a coward at best or a dishonest enabler and schemer and not a particularly good one. That is really what happened to the left as an overt force. The left that remained honest to something substantive has been drowned out by today's charlatans who are only interested in how they can win internet clout. They still exist, and there are a lot of ordinary people who out of dire necessity have become amenable to communism, but they see the leadership of the left and have to ask if that is something they can ever follow. It seems like the left is more enthusiastic about pushing the rot than is normal or healthy, because the left is gripped by this idea that they need to have a Boogaloo moment for anyone to do socialism "correctly". It doesn't occur to them to present socialism as anything other than this eugenic crusade, because eugenics is the only idea that remains admissible as a serious one.

>>467997
Well, there are many alternatives. We could have done something completely different from the ideological technocracy we got, and we can still do that. The idea of that "something new" is no longer permissible as a valid idea. Every attempt to do so is slandered as "fascism" or "retarded" or something to defend the ideological status quo. Fascism itself is the expected synthesis of the great world movement of its time, and looking back, its rise is almost inevitable. Those who tried to truly stop it before it began were silenced, and only with great expense did humanity temporarily fight back. This only happened out of dire necessity, because "die die die die die" doesn't actually work automatically. The thought leaders provided nothing or less than nothing to fight fascism, but pure determination made the Soviet people fight for their lives, while the intellectuals watched and thought it was a jolly good time to weed out those who didn't fit into the new world. After the war these intellectuals are glowing and bragging that they got away with it, and began whitewashing everything that happened with this pseudo-historical narrative. Above all, they whitewashed their involvement with fascism, eugenics, and Hitler's race-science, acting like they couldn't possibly have anything to do with it.

It's also funny how these people always categorically refuse to even consider the eugenics question - because they know I'm right, and rather than accept that, they insist on dancing around with pure mystifications. They never show this effort for any purpose other than defending eugenics, and they're not serious about giving the people a single fucking thing. Most of these people are just college faggots LARPing in their toy internationals or organizations that will never accomplish a single thing. They only exist to grift and ingratiate themselves to those who will rule the world to come, if they can. Communism as a meaningful alternative is not just defeated, but has been rewritten to be something that is entirely alien to the working class. The intellectuals and thought leaders made it theirs, and once they did, they tossed the actual workers in a ditch and laughed at them.

>>467909
It doesn't have to be universal and can exist only theoretically even but it is universal to whatever nation or country it happens to exist under at the time which is basically the same thing. In theory a universal currency could exist and that is good enough for the proposition. National currency only exist because of the history and development of humanity anyways. A universal currency could have existed if humanity had gone in a different historical tragectory.

>>468044
>>468045
>>468046
"Brevity is the soul of wit."

>>468056
That uyghur just likes to read his own writing
>I'm not mentally ill. You're just a satanic eugenicist blah blah blah

>>468057
Yeah pretty much.
Just sucking himself off.
He'll get butthurt and fuck off eventually.

>>467997
>says who? a 19th century philosophycel?
You figured out Marx doesn't support your doomer narrative, hence you start throwing feces like a mad monkey.

>Alternative is capitalists dispose of all the useless proles and live in their own high-tech post-scarcity communist utopia happily ever after.
It's a false narrative to distract from the fact that capitalists need workers not the other way around. But even if it was possible to do this without crashing the system that enables their power, they would just trade one proletarian class for another. If you could make machines that equal the universal labor power of humans, they would inherit other human proclivities, like the struggle to end the exploitation. Class struggle transcends the flesh.

Considering that most industrial power has shifted towards China, they probably won't ever get the chance.
What ever you think about the Chinese model, they aren't going to let porky mass-murder the majority of the population.

>>468063
The capitalists have the money and the property. If they had no workers, they could easily work for themselves. It is the workers who came to the cities with nothing at all, having been disposssessed. They were in a position where they had to accept whatever the capitalist and the city offered them or die. When the farmers were thrown into the cities during industrialization, it was understood that the proletariat was entering what was essentially a state of slavery. Adam Smith wrote as if that were the case, and had no illusions that the workers were free or entitled to any rights.
You can make a moral argument about whether that is right, or what we really want the world to be, but you cannot make a scientific claim that the workers have a right to anything, or that the capitalist needs them. Every action of the capitalist class has been disdainful of the workers' existence. The capitalist is not begging the workers to work for him. That's why the worker is made to pass through a rigamarole just for the dignity of being exploited. Somehow you never think about how humiliating it is to be put through human resources and the hiring process. Usually this comes from people selected to live, who always have a job lined up for them. The struggling do not have this. We are made to scrape and beg and kill each other for shitty service work. That is our world.

In the past, it suited the nation-state project to employ workers towards making use-values, but the capitalist has no inherent incentive to produce useful things. Far from it, the bourgeoisie have to be dragged kicking and screaming into productive investments, even when the use of industry is obvious. The capitalist's concern is property and maintaining the social relations that place them in a position where their money means anything. The whole point of the capitalist is to be the exploiter and they see no problem with this. You have to invent a whole moral philosophy which is at odds with basic reality. It's not Marxism, it's Fabianism.

>>468072
And this has always been the case. That's why capitalism threw workers out of work, and the capitalists and workers alike had a sense of who was the first to be excluded. It's why there was consistently a residuum that was at the bottom, and one of Marx's first contributions is to turn against this residuum, and in doing so invert the most basic condition socialism would have required.

>>468072
>The capitalists have the money and the property. If they had no workers
If they have no workers, their money can't buy labor power anymore.
Money literally is the power to command labor power, if it can't do that it becomes worthless.
Without the workers their vast properties would fall in disrepair.

>they could easily work for themselves
it is the workers that could just work for them selves, using the means of production that were build by workers.

Lets face it the capitalists are just an appendage to the working class who are the true core of civilization.

>>468075
If the capitalists have no workers, they won. The workers are dead and the capitalists won the struggle for life. That's how they think, and they talk about it all the time. The idea that capitalists need workers is at odds with everything the capitalists have done. The capitalist chooses who lives and who dies, and everything about their governing ideas has revolved around that and making it real.
The capitalist is perfectly happy to live in a trash heap, so long as he wins the struggle for life. But, the outcome of the class war is that the capitalist will, if he does not do the work himself, keep only those workers who are amenable to the most abject slavery. That is the plan in motion now, and you have enabled it. That's why you have prison slavery and psychiatric slavery, dominated by torture. That's why the manager delights in the thrill of torture - because that is now life's prime want.

Absent any developed institution, the workers would be the economic engine - but we never started with a blank slate. You're transposing a very flawed understanding of British empiricism onto Marxism, which is something Marx specifically rejected. So right there, if you're citing Marx for a very un-Marxist position, you're not getting it and should probably shut up. Liberals and Marxists alike understand that institutions are real things though. It is only Fabians and the most insane and evil eguenists who tell you that vast institutions can't possibly exist, and this is pure mystification and an application of the most foul forms of Germanic philosophy.

>>468075
By the time the modern class struggle begins, large institutions are a fact of life. Those institutions enter a phase of transformation, in order to better manage the empires humans now built. That's all the modern encounter was - it did not "abolish the old" and start anew. Those who conspired to incite revolution wanted to capture the state, not replace it with something altogether different. It would be quite impossible to impose something new on the world - and again, if you understood Marx, this is explicit on multiple fronts, and is one of the main thrusts in his entire work. The new can only come into existence atop the old, according to the Marxist theory of history. The concept of a clean break - which is what many of us wanted - doesn't exist in that mindset. It would not be possible in that worldview, and so it must be concluded in the ideological view that anything new is impossible. Thus, history is arrested and the situation is permanent and unassailable.
Yet, something new will exist, out of dire necessity. The ideological forms of the past are wholly inappropriate in the 21st century, unless you are attached to the ruling interest, in which case you will always seek to arrest history because you won the struggle for life, and the thrill of torturing the losers is the point. That is what Nazism proved.

>>468079
>If the capitalists have no workers, they won.
No workers means nobody does their bidding anymore, that means they lost everything.

>The workers are dead and the capitalists won the struggle for life.
If the parasite kills the host, it dies too.

>The capitalist is perfectly happy to live in a trash heap, so long as he wins the struggle for life.
This makes no sense, they could just live in a trash heap, they don't need to accumulate any capital for that.

>But, the outcome of the class war is that the capitalist will, if he does not do the work himself, keep only those workers who are amenable to the most abject slavery. That is the plan in motion now, and you have enabled it. That's why you have prison slavery and psychiatric slavery, dominated by torture. That's why the manager delights in the thrill of torture - because that is now life's prime want.
This kind of stuff happens to systems when they go into harsh decline.
Declining systems are not the future

>>468080
I think you are paraphrasing Antonio Gramsci
<The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.

>>468079
Are you seriously retarded? I am dead serious. Do you think that fundamental forces just don't exist or what? Just because people want something doesn't mean it is fundamentally possible. People want time travel, but, that doesn't mean it is possible.

>>468084
You seem to think the smart capitalists do this out of some egomaniacal need to be loved and worshipped. Nothing of the sort motivates the capitalist in a material sense. The capitalist cares about his property before he can care about anything else. To believe your story requires believing the world revolves around this perverse need to be worshipped, which is only something a True Believing cultist buys into. Most people, capitalists or not, do not think that way at all. They think about themselves and those that they have a reason to think about. They don't have any intrinsic reason to care about the human project at all, let alone being worshipped in a particular way.
Further, the reduction of workers to total slavery would be the end of capitalism, and of the working class as workers. The rulers of that world would still be worshipped. They are not married to capitalism or the market to obtain that worship, if that is the point - but the worship is not the point. The suffering is the point, but "all good things must come to an end".

Satanics, like you, cannot understand this. When you are told this, your brain short-circuits and reasserts the Satanic morality and ethics, because it can't accept that there is anything else in the world. It then commits to a preferred view of the world, a just-so narrative that suits your social station and the institutions that exist at any given time. The way things are become the only way things can be, and all visions of the future are just reconfigurations of the same essences.

Finally, there is no rule that prevents the capitalist from getting off his ass and working himself, if he absolutely has to. The defeat of the working class would likely mean that a small number of people are reformed into caste slaves, mind controlled and nerve stapled so that their torture is absolute and the thrill of the manager is maximized. But, even if this didn't happen, the capitalist would see the defeat of the worker as good in of itself, more than any benefit of keeping the worker. To believe otherwise is to believe that the capitalist has some strange sympathy with the worker that is an absolute, when everything about the capitalist suggests otherwise.

The Satanics in this thread do not comprehend what is said here, so they shout like retards with their usual "nuh uh" and act like me saying basic shit is some sort of schizophrenia. You're the retards. You're the insane ones.

>>468085
Gramsci was telling the communists, in not-too-coded language, the nature of the transformation taking place with fascism, and that the new strategy of the communists would be to march through the institutions. This would commit the communist movement to the institutions, i.e. the think the working class saw as the most clear and present danger. The capitalist was giving the worker a job, however much it was exploitative. The institutions only offered death and the final sorting of the population, having been given over utterly to eugenics. The communists looked the other way at what was obvious to us, and they died for it.

The same twisted morality and ethics suggests that "capitalists want population growth", with the implication that the capitalist is bad for eugenics. It is clear that the eugenic interest overtook the workers' interest and even the technological interest.

The technological interest still sits in the driver's seat at the end of the day, and the end result of this eugenic crusade is that, after enough people have been killed and their behavior is modified, and everyone is sorted into their caste, those selected to rule and think for you can come out and do whatever they want. The slavery will then be truly absolute, and history will freeze completely. The scientific dictatorship will never end, and the thrill of torture will move to a new phase, having been proven as the sole remaining governing idea in mankind. That is the ultimate goal of the Galtonites.
You can keep enabling it if you like, but the result will be the same. You can either try and fight it, however hopeless it may be, or you may try to acknowledge what it is in the hope that something in this world can be salvaged. If it is anything other than that, the only moral course of action is either suicide or omnicide of the human race, and this will become an absolute. It is why the revolution was only truly possible when the threat of nuclear weapons could be pointed at every civilian center, and the rural folk would be drained from the countryside.

>>468087
Alex Jones has more range and more interesting takes tbh

>>468089
You are a retard.

>>468125
No u

>>468130
Eugenics is not at the center of the on goings of our current historical epoch.

>>468140
The opposite is true. Western society is highly dysgenic. The schizoid needs to take a second to breathe I think

>>468142
Eugenics is the reason why you have the people poisoned. The Nazis used these tactics on occupied populations to destroy conquered races.
The people selected to live do not suffer the way we do. They do not. They have their lives made for them, no struggle. They talk all this shit about the struggle for life, but they've never once had to question their position and what the institutions handed to them. They are promoted exactly where they were assigned by sorting at the age of 16 if not earlier.
I guarantee you, in that world, the "dysgenics" of the lower classes does not happen at all. They know that the shit lifestyle we're told is normal is a trap, and laugh at us for tolerating it. Those are the conditions of eugenics, as Galton called them - the lower classes are destroyed systematically for the benefit of those at the apex. There is no other way eugenics can be implemented.

If you wanted to actually improve the qualities of the human stock, you would not do anything Galton suggests at all. So far as humanity has improved, it is entirely in spite of Galtonism, or works around it and operates on entirely different principles. The people who actually think about intelligence know who the smart people are and who is invited into the orgies.

>>468156
You reek of Tavistock.

>>468158
How do you know what it smells like though?

>>468161
It's so odious that the smell is transmitted by words alone. You know it when you develop a sense for it.

>>468171
Sounds like you spend a decent amount of time around troons. No doubt all part of the eugenics plot