/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Oh, the greyshirt shitsacks are raised back yet again, to save the class system in these global crisis times by any kind of opportunistic means necessary.
How unexpectable.

Socialist aesthetics, vague moral platitudes, and name-dropping historical materialism without understanding its true content(e.g reaction is a pointless endeavor, for one.)

You really hit all the fascist checkmarks, my friend.

>>469247
If that's the case, then I guess a bit more fascism is exactly what the left (and world) needs

First of all, you're basically for equality while also appearing arguing against it. Nobody thinks of 100% complete equality when they talk about equality, there is always some specificity implied by it like "legal equality" for the libs. And whats ironic is that the way you repudiate equality is pretty much a mainstream position at this point. Normoids and libshits are increasingly prefer to talk about "equity" instead of "equality". In their case its ideological manipulation but yours just seems like word autism to me. Its plainly obvious that freedom and equality can coincide, just imagine telling a slave that equality is the opposite of freedom. So juxtaposing the two like that is questionable, and if you think thats slave morality then I'm sorry to tell you this but you don't understand what Nietzsche was saying.
On the flipside this "red superman" thing is too vague and implies too much. Are you talking about nature or nurture? The communists had similar ideas (New Soviet Man) but it was not based in eugenics. If yours is then I'm dialing up Eugene.
Good point on the neofeudalism hypothesis but its not fully developed yet. My problem with it is mostly semantic since it tends to obscure the fact that we got here through capitalism (and thanks to neoliberalism no less). I don't think a serious Marxist critique would be so opposed to it.
I think what freaks people here out is mainly the populism + elitism formula. This is the mainstay of fascist politics, although we now know well that the fascists actually despised the masses and had no qualms routinely manipulating them. You seem genuine too, but again you're too vague and might give the wrong impression. Or maybe you just crafted this post to upset easily triggered leftists?
Totally agree with the last part, although its perhaps too broad. There are some examples of conflict or competition in everyday life that are counterproductive enough to desire elimination, although whether or not they actually can be is a different story.

This is you.

>>469190
The thing about striving for greatness that's a decent value, but the mental gymnastics for preserving the class system, you can keep it, we don't want it.

>>472036
China, Russia, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, etc — somehow that pesky class system never goes away, just changes name.

>>469190
>There’s nothing, ever, which is perfectly equal.
Nobody talks about perfect equality.
There SHOULD be an equalization trend tho, which is achieved automatically if compensation is carried out according to work done, so there is a balance between claims on surplus and the surplus itself, ie they cancel each other out.

>>472055
So…. Basically you want equality..

Thanks for clearing up the confusion

>>472046
>somehow that pesky class system never goes away, just changes name.
Because all the "socialist" countries, by the definiton of the ownership of the means of production of socially needed things, should be appropriately named national-capitalist since in doing capitalist revolutions in the world where all the metropolitan capitalist positions were already occupied they had to find a way to solidarize all of the local populace into a metrocolony for accumulating capital inside this same country for the local social progress to occur?
& this is why all of these countries always had to massively invest into capitalist-like education (the one that doesn't put the social system @ risk) & guaranteed healthcare, since they couldn't rely on the exploitation of the foreign, non-nation colonial populace?
& this is why all of the so-called "socialist" countries always had a massive nationalistic idpol in their rhetoric so that they could exploit their populace (& their faith in the government) more effectively to try to catch up with the metropolitan powers as fast as they could?
& this is why they murdered their "left-wings" for being too radical/idealistic/adventuristic/ultra/whatever since their socialist programs were incompatible with the nation-building of capitalist society?
& this is why, as the so-called "ultra-left communists/marxists" pointed out, these NatCap countries had the "new class/state bourgeoisie" emerging for leading the capitalist reformations of this society, & this class, due to all private property being redirected under one politeconomical entity ‒ the state in militarizing the capital accumulation ‒ was formed out of the bueraucracy, the state managers who de facto related to this private property as its collective owner due to de facto being the ones who ruled what & where would be produced & where it would be sold? & since the state, as we know, is a repressive apparatus of the leading class, & to uphold this class division this state has to repress & grab as much politeconomical power from the rest of society as possible, all these "socialist" countries never made any attempt to socialize the means of production (= to take them from the state/companies property) & always actively repressed such ideas & notions? & this is why the means of production were de facto in the private property since all of the populace that didn't belong to the government/company management also didn't own these means of production themselves, being alienated from them & had to sell away their labor power to the de facto private owners of said means of production to make a living, just like it was done in the metropolitan-capitalist countries, & this is why it is precisely the proletarians who were striking in the so-called "socialist''" countries, since they wanted to have @ least more than one wage slave operator to sell their labor to, instead of being dead set in this monopolitical system where the state-bourgs can ramp up whatever wages they would want to without any interference from another side?
& this is why the "socialist" countries never in their history abolished commodity production but only improved it, along with paying wages & selling stuff instead of letting the people to own the fruits of their labor?
& these NatCap countries, due to the nature of their relation to the metropolitan states, usually had to make frens with their own kinds of governments ("internationalism") of the world to stand a chance against the already established capitalist powers which hated the new competition for closing off their markets to their colonial corporations?
& that sometimes the same national-capitalist countries (Chynah) had to ally themselves with metropolitan-capitalist powers to get an upper hand against the appetites of the 1st ever NatCap global power ‒ the United States of "Soviet" R*shia, which more & more began to gain the same metropolitan economical &/or political wants as it grew the amount of its wealth?

& all of this shitfest happened & goes on & on because the socialist revolt that happened in the 1917 ultimately failed, as any fucking commie of that time fully acknowledged (the ""gr8" "october" "socialist" "revolution"" was called a "Coup d'etat of the October" for 20 years straight ffs), & began to invent a new theory of stripping the capitalist metropolies of their capital power by revolutionary modernising their semi-feudal colonies, for the time being, & this is where all this "national liberation" theory was born out of?

Well, shit! Who could have fucking knew that the mere concept of "nation" was made for the capitalist revolutions & therefore is incompatible with the socialist, the global one! Oh my, oh my! Succialism by 2069, guize!


Tl;Dr
Because there was never a SOCIALIST revolution, only CAPITALIST ones.

So what you're looking @ all this time is a perpetual inter-capitalist conflict between nations, not classes.
& "nation" means "state". & there could be no state in socialism as defined by Marx precisely because a nation is a society that is politically & economically alienated from the rest of humanity. anti-Revisionista reactofaschizonazofaggots can only cope & hope to rope every bloke who just can point that little petite moment out, since never in history did that dogdamn dogless judeokike ultra by the name of Karl Marx belong to their state-approved "Marxism".

>>472073
>Because all the "socialist" countries, by the definiton of the ownership of the means of production of socially needed things, should be appropriately named national-capitalist
>Because there was never a SOCIALIST revolution, only CAPITALIST ones.
This is very similar to the argument that arch-neo-lib Milton Freedman was making in the 70s and 80s. Redefining everything as capitalism is an ideological slight of hand. The neo-libs wanted to say that there was no alternative to capitalism, and therefore they had to redefine all the actually existing socialist countries as capitalist. To erase the fact that there is an alternative to capitalism. Every class-society invents stories like that, because the rulers don't want their subjects to realize that ruling classes are not necessary.

>ultra-left pointed out
No it was Stalin that said lower-stage socialist countries were doing capital accumulation. And Stalin might also have been the one that coined the term state-capitalism to describe the NEP. The only argument was about necessity. Marx clearly thought that bootstrapping socialism needed advanced means of production, because he thought socialism would originate in the most advanced capitalist countries with the most advanced mop.

Every single socialist revolution that happened in the periphery ended up trying to do a industrial speed run in one way or another to catch up with the capitalists in the core. You could look at that history and conclude that maybe having advanced MOP does matter for building socialism after-all.

Maybe the state socialism of the 20th century just ended up being the way it was because it lacked the communications technology to collectively coordinate the allocations of surplus, and collectively direct the application of the means of production. Like what the cyber-socialists say. Maybe if the Soviets had survived longer and leaned harder into computer-networking, there would be a socialist block where socialist citizens could log on to mop.sov and vote for allocation priorities of resources and labor-power of the economy.

>>472073
Didn't read that wordsalad of backwards rationalization for why your fake/they ideology never works in practice.

When you're done coping and seething, try going outside and getting some sunshine

>>472077
Also a bit copey/misguided/fantasy driven, but at least somewhat grounded in historical materialism rather than ultra-left posturing.

>>472073
>>472077
you both are mouthbreathing retards

SU wasn't capitalist. Maybe it was some other kind of class society. Tho no other class society in history collapsed from the top like that.
I get the impression that in RES systems NOBODY was happy lol, not the political elites, not the intelligentsia, not the proles.

That's not usually how class societies operate.

On the other hand, Party elite obviously was a kinda quasi-class, unconscious class aspirants kek, and I think Trotsky was right when he placed the start of this process in the post civil war consolidation phase, tho the little thing he conveniently "forgot" to mention is that he himself was a part of this process lol. BUT. The consolidation process was not complete, not complete at all. On their way to capitalism with red flags a-la modern China (but without all the economic development), SOMETHING happened. Something that heralded the return of Terror, something that made a revolutionary tyrant out of the always moderate Stalin, something that saw the return of chaos, something that saw the Party choke on its own blood.

The new, second consolidation phase, was completed after the war. The Tyrant seemed to understand this with a corresponding shift in ideology to nationalism and chauvinism and even antisemitism, but weirdly enough, he clung to his old tyrannical ways of revolutionary Terror, that had no place in that post-consolidation world. So when he died, the HATE was genuine. That's why there was NO CHANCE of reconciliation, no chance of "70% good, 30% bad" - Mao never did to the party what Stalin did.

That whole society was stillborn from the very beginning. But it was conceived nonetheless.

>>472080
>not the political elites
tho maybe they weren't happy because they had a constant reminder of their inferiority compared to the capitalist elites

>>472080
oh, and also, me on the lower left kek

love that picture, you can almost see cornman crying inside lol

>>472080
>SU wasn't capitalist.
Correct
The rest is rather questionable

Soviet Union wasn't a "quasi"class society, they even had worker-quotas.
The Soviet social climate was very optimistic.
The word Tyrant usually is reserved for when political power is used on behalf of the interests of the masses.
The Soviets weren't antisemitic.
China can't be called capitalist either.
It was beyond stupid to vilify Stalin because of feels, instead of doing 70%correct 30%incorrect like the Chinese did with Mao.

>>472086
>Soviet Union wasn't a "quasi"class society, they even had worker-quotas.
It was at the VERY LEAST a quasi-class society. Or a full blown new class society. I'm leaning more to the latter.

Quotas mean jack shit when you don't have any workers in the central committee and politburo.

>The Soviet social climate was very optimistic.
kek
tell that to executed leningrad party leadership
tell that to Molotov's wife

tell that to proles who were escaping into alcoholism en masse from such "optimism" kek

>The word Tyrant usually is reserved for when political power is used on behalf of the interests of the masses.
funny how those "masses" were so paranoid of tyranny then lol

nobody celebrated Pisistratus

>The Soviets weren't antisemitic.
if the Jewish Doctors Plot is not antisemitism then I don't know what else is lol

Stalin took a page out of the Hitler's book on this one

I guess he just run out of ideas kek

>China can't be called capitalist either.
China can't be called anything else but capitalism.

>It was beyond stupid to vilify Stalin because of feels, instead of doing 70%correct 30%incorrect like the Chinese did with Mao.
If you lived in the constant fear for years seeing your fellow party functionaries getting offed at random - you would be fucking emotional too when the fucker dies.

>>472087
I think you have huffed too much cold war propaganda.

>>472088
And I think you have huffed too much dogmoid mltoid farts.

>>472086
also quotas were there for the same reason there are vote banners in your mailbox today lol - to keep the spectacle of legitimacy

>>472092
Worker-quotas aren't a panacea against political-rot, but they're a good thing to have anyway. It makes sure that more average people get put into decision making positions and that means more of the banal everyday problems that average people face get fixed. Living in that society will be much more pleasant.

>>472073
take note everyone, this is what happens when you're high as fuck on cope
sorry but communists aren't anarchists, they never intended to simply do away with the class system, in fact they never intended to fully do away with capitalism. from day 1 the assumption was that capitalism spawned from a contradiction of bourgeois social relations and the forces of production, and the goal of the communists was to consciously work through that contradiction. it was expected that socialism would *heighten* the contradiction, not eliminate it.
the commies that came after the bolsheviks - mainly Stalin - took a step forward by innovating the socialist mode of production, but then took two steps back by both claiming to have exited capitalism as a result and ignoring the importance of radical democracy.
but that doesn't mean they were state capitalist, the reality is a lot messier. the communist world was stuck on the tightrope between capitalism and socialism, and eventually fell into the abyss. simply put, socialist was fettered through triumphalist stagnation - they halted their project of building socialism before it was finished, being ideologically compelled to go no further. it was a political failure.
there's a political joke that perfectly encapsulates the problem here on a simpler level. i wont copy and paste it directly so just google "soviet train joke", i'm pretty sure you'll find it.

>>472343
Dude this is such a massive strawman argument. Retard USSR larpers like this are to myopic and ideological to understand that their particular ideology of whatever post capitalist economic system; Socialist, communist call it whatever, whatever it is it doesn't have to look like that and there's no reason to think that their, clearly historically failed economic system; Which they will literally turn themselves inside out to defend, is the only way forward. Decentralized economic systems are the only logical soluition because freedom is something inherent to human existence.

Inb4:

>But achually freedom not real
>But achually stalin did nuffin wrong

>>472344
>Decentralized economic systems are the only logical soluition because freedom is something inherent to human existence.
this is peak idealism

it's really simple: you either have some kind of a unified plan, or you have market

there is no third option, pick your poison

>>472344
>clearly historically failed economic system
funny how you forged about another failed historical socialist experiment - Yugoslavia, the poster boy of market soycialists

the best we can hope for is some kind of a central (as in unified), but distributed (as in negotiated) plan

how this shit could actually work is anyone's guess

>>472344
The soviet system did work, it substantially uplifted the material conditions for hundreds of millions of people.

When it comes to economic systems the most important question is whose interests does it prioritize. Centralized vs decentralized are important structural questions, but they're not a substitute for asking about interests.

>>472345
>you either have some kind of a unified plan, or you have market
You're not wrong in the present. But technologically a decentralized economic cyber-socialism planning system is possible.

>>472348
>When it comes to economic systems the most important question is whose interests does it prioritize.
I would say "Who actually rules?" and "Are there still classes?" ended up being far more important questions in the long view. Because ultimately the bureaucratic class had a vested interest in collapsing their system and sending the rest of the people right back into poverty and destitution before the soviet systems.

When your only focus is whether people's lives improved, you're setting up an argument that can be used to justify any manner of unjust, powerless system from slavery to Plato's imaginary benevolent philosopher king. As long as the master or lord or capitalist or oligarchic bureaucracy are good and improve people's lives, what does it matter who rules and controls society?

>>472350
This is an old debate. I think Micheal Parenti refutes Chomsky pretty thoroughly.
https://farside.link/invidious/watch?v=JQcvtIa4yWw

Improving the material reality for people is not optional or secondary. Ultimately Chomsky's views about the soviet dissolution are reactionary because he says that it was a good thing. The fallout from the resulting brutal economic crash was 10-11 million dead, and whatever complaint one may have about the soviet system, it wasn't worth killing off all those people.

You are not entirely wrong tho. In the end the soviet managerial and technical strata sort off did betray the proletariat. However that's not really an argument for condemning the soviet system as a hole. That's a design flaw in the political system. Paul Cockshott for example has a more constructive criticism in this area, he says socialists should favor sortition democracy over electoral democracy to fix this.

>>472351
>This is an old debate. I think Micheal Parenti refutes Chomsky pretty thoroughly.
I don't. The Soviet Union collapsed and threw millions of people into poverty and early death. Class matters.

>>472351
Parenti's argument is extremely emotional and rather than refuting the problem with the Soviet system of governance, he simply ignores it and attempts to sidestep it. But that kind of willful blind eye is exactly what shocked and blinded some leftists when the system they cheerleaded for was so easily destroyed and inverted in the late '80s.

And the point about Cockshott is he's advocating an entirely different, actually democratic system that makes it impossible for a bureaucratic class to emerge. The flaw of the soviet system is that it simply reproduced the same anti-democratic, oligarchic system of electoral governance that every capitalist system since the 18th century adopted. Elections are not democratic and they reproduce a class system, it's just that simple.

>>472352
You are beginning with an erroneous premise, the Soviet Union didn't have classes. The Soviets managed to double the lifespan of their citizens compared to what came before. And Chomsky is wrong about considering the soviet dissolution a good thing, because it was not justifiable to kill so many people to bring down that system.

>>472353
Parenti makes the case that the soviet system grew out of a historic process, they weren't granted a blank slate to design a system from scratch. You have to make comparisons with what came before, not how it compares with your ideal system. Btw, the Soviets were anything but easily defeated, they withstood a relentless onslaught.

>And the point about Cockshott is he's advocating an entirely different, actually democratic system
Cockshott originally intended for his cyber-socialism book to become the impetus for reforming the late soviet system.
>The flaw of the soviet system
<was political
Well the Soviet political system certainly had flaws, but that was only a contributing factor in their downfall.

>>472344
you're the one making a strawman. the fact of the matter is that from a Marxist perspective USSR was in some senses socialist and in other senses not. this isnt too difficult to understand, and such is obviously not a denial of the fact that the USSR was rife with numerous undesirable features.
you strike me as an ignorant ideologue who cares more about moral superiority than serious analysis. this weird focus on centralization vs decentralization is a red herring.

>>472354
>You are beginning with an erroneous premise, the Soviet Union didn't have classes.
Sadly it did. There were workers who had their interests and there were bureaucrats whose interests sometimes were at odds and opposed to worker interest. There was no greater example of this than the bureaucratic class dismantling their own system to the widespread objection of workers in the '80s.

>>472354
>And Chomsky is wrong about considering the soviet dissolution a good thing, because it was not justifiable to kill so many people to bring down that system.
Yes, not unlike Parenti on the other side of the fence, Chomsky was also full of moralizing piss takes on the subject of the Soviet Union. However the main point Chomsky makes in that video is very important: progress can and has been used to justify any class system. It is a flawed and inconsistent justification that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If our analysis begins and ends with "Was there progress?", we will once again be blindsided when a major revolution we support finds itself undone because we didn't pay attention to unresolved class conflicts.

>>472357
It actually does stand up to scrutiny, which is why the PRC has been so successful at building their economy while enjoying public support and cohesion, while also simultaneously minting new millionaires.

It doesn't make sense if you're a miserable faggot naval gazer who has never stepped foot outside of the burger homeland lest in a guided tour filled with other fatty burgeroids.

>>472358
Socialism by 2100!

>>472354
>The Soviets managed to double the lifespan of their citizens compared to what came before.
How is this relevant in any way to their class character? Do I need to remind you what capitalism has managed to do with a lifespan due to invention of antibiotics?

>Btw, the Soviets were anything but easily defeated, they withstood a relentless onslaught.
No, they imploded on themselves due to acute socio-political crisis.

>Well the Soviet political system certainly had flaws, but that was only a contributing factor in their downfall.
It called political economy for a reason. You can't separate one from the other.

What you mltards don't understand, is that you political system IS ALWAYS ON THE DEFENSIVE, and all your "solutions", from purges to censorship ARE DEFENSIVE in character. That's why you are bound to always lose.

>>472358
>PRC
is capitalist

>>472358
>It actually does stand up to scrutiny, which is why the PRC has been so successful at building their economy while enjoying public support and cohesion, while also simultaneously minting new millionaires.
You are correct, but generating lots of wealth inequality in China wasn't a good thing, the price for developing the mop was steep, it has to be considered as a bad side effect that they have to fix.

After China manages to complete the transformation to full socialism, there will still be some people proclaiming "not real socialism", because they didn't take the "approved" path for building socialism, and they need to have a do-over for it to count.

>>472379
Can't wait for it to happen before all the red dwarfs in the universe turn into black dwarfs.

>>472366
>>472370
I actually kinda agree with this.

Some form of 'neotributary' deformed capitalism exits in both the west and china as the base/mode of production. It's inevitable according to an actual historical materialist analysis (not rejurgitated dogma abt the subject). The politics and social stuff is window dressing.

However, - this is a big point - those political and social policies and cultures can often be a decisive factory in the comparative development, conflict within and between, and the simple bearablity of said societies.

True leftist struggle, thus, is one for the least worst form of a neotributary system, one which hopefully develops into something much better (but still a sort of least worst of all possible configurations).

So it's very inappropriate to speak of china as socialist in the marxoid braindead western sense. And it certainly has major features of capitalism, private markets and ownership of the MoP, but there is also a high degree of bureaucratic and political oversight and intervention along with conscious national efforts at social conditioning/unifying education, along with and increasing orientation to social management via communication and security technology. So it's neither purely capitalist in bare Marxist sense either. And again, this also describes the culturally and politically different west in a certain essential economic sense.

>>472379
Complex societies have greater levels of inequality than simpler ones
<Shocked

>Faggy moralizing about inequality being some defining moral barometer to everything. Almost as ghey as Chinoid nationalists who see car and other shiny objets as some barometer on how well their 'socialism' is working.

And you're naive if you think China (or anywhere else) is going to develop into some pristine and ideal 'best possible world' version of western marxoid fever dream soycialism.

>>472383
And you're naive if you think a benevolent oligarchy is directing China towards socialism.

>>472380
The falling rate of profit for the core countries probably reaches zero in the 2050s. China's rate probably won't be too far behind that.

>>472383
>Complex societies have greater levels of inequality than simpler ones
No you got that backwards, economic inequality limits the complexity of societies.
If you spread the wealth evenly you can have significantly more layers of higher order decision making ability in a society. Economic inequality is like gravity limiting how tall you can build. It's quite simple if every new floor you add costs more and more you'll get fewer floors than if the floor-price stays the same.

Lowering economic inequality will eventually become a structural necessity to reach higher levels of technological development.

>>472384
I don't think I ever said that, and spend a paragraph or two talking about how that wasn't the case, but okkk. Thanks for letting me know

>>472385
Retarded faggy sophistry. Go outside

>>472385
The only part that is reasonable is that lowering inequality is important, and for a somewhat similar reason that you stated - but not foolishly attempting to eliminate it.

>>472350
Is this debate taking place at 11pm at night?

>>472385
idk. I think economic stratification is independent of the complexity of the society.

>>478772
that's certainly a novel take
please explain your self

I see the ops are rolling everything into fascism and eugenics harder now. A lot of ground is being laid, and assholes like this are part of that - or hangers on who think they're totally going to be chosen, and aren't just fags.

Nearly everything in OP is flagrantly and proudly wrong and recapitulates its wrongness violently. Like, basic things about what a "society" is are replaced with this faggot ideology. I'm not even going to go there directly because it's a waste of time to respond to his stupidity. That this works shows just how pointless "leftypol" is, how utterly incompetent and feckless the people ehre have been.

All of this comes of course from a failure to regard the centrality of eugenics to everything that has happened - because for many a socialist, that IS "socialism", and they repudiated anything that would have been functional in favor of this institutional coup. It happens too often to be an accident, and it is done by various means, on various fronts, to ensure that the people never have a single thing ever again. OP screams pure faggotry and eugenic creed, and the people here still insist I'm the bad guy for saying what eugenics is, and why this keeps happening. Rather than reactively respond, I'll just write something about equality.

Political equality as you all likely know is a fiction. In politics, two agents are never equal in standing or interests, and never can be made into one. Every marriage, unhappy or relatively happy as far as these things can go, demonstrates that every day. Social inequality of the sort that is relevant - the sort where internal barriers are erected for no other reason than to make sure the "correct" people "naturally" win - was the argument of the socialists in the main, rather than political inequality which would never be resolved. I sbould remind everyone that the narrative that any of the liberal revolutions were about equality in any sense was a dread of the conservative order, rather than anything the OG liberals actually believed or said. The liberals saw themselves correctly as an emerging aristocracy with levers of control based on their technological knowledge, the development of science and industry, and an increased reliance on courtiers and specialists that early modern states favored. In France, this plays out as a battle between the sword and robe nobility, with the commoners siding with the latter (often because the robe nobility were those who bought their way into noble status, and saw they could cut out the middleman in this new era). There is a concept that talent could be drawn from anywhere, but in practice, none of the revolutionaries were under the belief that they were equal to a lowly worker, let alone a slave, nor that workers or slaves would realistically be equal in any sense with the rising interests. Democratization had much more to do with technology and the potential of a mass army - that was the proof of concept that a mass army could work, and it is this that the conservative order had to undermine at every opportunity. Since they could not defeat mass armies in battle - since warrior aristocracies are a terrible way to fight - they instead worked out a strategy for making that mass army into a social experiment, and utilizing the state and its officers for a very long run program to roll back what technology and circumstance made apparent. In the important task of pointing a boomstick at something and pulling the trigger, almost every human is as good as anyone else. It is important to make it seem like pulling a trigger, or dropping a ball into a can, is too much work, and that things that were once basic and common sense were no longer attainable. As much as possible, the education the conservative order promotes indolence, stupidity, faggotry, and every vice imaginable, and does so for any spurious pretext it can get away with. In the long run, the new aristocracy of capital and technology sided with the conservative order, once they had acquired what they really wanted - security and a majority stake in any actual administration. By now, the nobles of today are the revolutionaries of that time, many of them coming up after the US Civil War in America.

What the ordinary people actually do or are is frankly not interesting to the people kvetching about equality being evil and the "danger of the mob". The mob has largely shown itself to be disinterested in politics, as you would expect from people who have no real stake in the institutions at best and who see the institutions correctly as the greatest threat in their lives on average. The mob is not going to start a revolution just because, and often can't be bribed into joining such a thing. Revolutions are games between those who can contest the society, and who have a sufficient motive to do so. By the 20th century, command of technology and command of particular qualities overtook a race for acquisition of territory and monied capital. The capital had to be transformed into something more useful for what the ruling interests wanted, and so, we got what we got around the world. Above all, if ordinary people commanded technology in their own right, they would have no real reason to accept any of the new aristocracy - not the old guard who revel in state power, and not the new monied elites or university cults who pretended to oppose the old guard. The fear of "equality" is really a need to enclose technology and nothing but that. Whether the masses pose any sort of threat is not relevant. Very often, there are more of the masses who are amenable to the status quo because in their experience, anything new is likely to be worse, as they are not in any position to contest anything and they have always known this. What is really being litigated is a rivalry between those two old camps, and the interests of those who command both of them like puppets for whatever advantage that will give them. They show nothing but disdain for the idea that the people would actually want something entirely different from this shitfest, as the greatest threat to all of them would be a Caesar who breaks ranks with the echo chamber and recruits a gang of people willing to crown him as a king. Unlike the Romans, who all in one way or another were trying to do what Caesar did, none of the present aristocracy can afford to lose or speak honestly about anything. One of the advances of technology has been to strip from the elite any initiative except that which serves the core program of eugenics and slavery. What remains are pale shadows of the men and women who built this beast, and sadly, that's all it can produce. Rather than failing as it should, the republic refuses to die, and has reversed entirely anything worthwhile in such an arrangement. It's nothing but a race to the bottom now, and I don't see any end for a while. When it does end, I think a lot of people have already figured out what sort of government would follow this.

The people who bray the most about the horror of equality are petty and middle managers who know they're worthless or actively harmful, beyond the miserable standard the republic sets for us now. The demands of the masses were never for equality - why would they want to be equal with their oppressors, as if such a thing were possible? They didn't even expect to overthrow their superiors or hold any leverage, since neither of those things realistically happen. The demands of the masses are simple, and if you really care to speak to them, they will tell you this - they want their wages to be higher, their taxes to be lower, and security against the beast that rules over them. Freedom is always understood to be this for most of us, rather than some ideology or thought-form that is detached from anything substantive. You're not free if you have a knife at your throat and are told this is your "choice'. But, even that level of freedom is far too much to ask for. Most of the people ask why they must be made to suffer this much, for no particularly good reason, when if the elites let them live and didn't make this world so miserable, everyone - or at least most people - would be far better off, and the cost of maintaining this horrific beast choking the whole world and all of mankind would be far less if it didn't wage a social engineering war of choice against the people. The reasons why this war have been pressed were never economic or mandated by any technological necessity, nor any natural law. Nature, so far as it has any say in the matter, has been sending messages in its way telling humans to not do what they've been doing and what they're about to do. The world does not abide abomination, contrary to the aristocratic belief that the world favors their abomination and punishes the kind and sentimental. Funny enough, I never see people more sentimental and fucking faggotty than eugenists.