/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>472914
>lot of hate that vegans receive isn't because people are overly hostile to eating vegetables. It's because vegans themselves brand themselves in a negative light: emotional, effeminate, weak, etc.
People hate those vegans that aggressively get in your face and try to lecture you about food. They get the hate because they behave like a crazy sect of dietary fundamentalists, who erroneously think that their dietary choices entitles them to exert power over other people.

>>472917
I absolutely hate internet vegans. I was vegan for 10 years and gave it up because being homeless and vegan is impossible. I plan on going but but I always find myself telling them how counterproductive their self righteous behavior is.

>>472917
I think that eating meat should be against the law tbh under animal abuse laws. This line of reasoning never makes sense because you ignore the agency of the animal.

>>472919
I've been vegan for over 2 decades… Am I swear that a vitamin b12 deficiency makes some of you so socially retarded

>>472920
I guess you can't read so maybe you need to actually look at yourself.
>Ad hominem
>Ad homine
>Ad Homien

Why don't you just go post on 4chan if all you want to do is just be a stupid faggot, hm?

>>472921
Please wait until your testes drop before trying to clapback

>>472914
One of the main ways that the state is suppressing socialist ideas is by making the right look racist and making the left look weak in all the ways you said. Both have to be obsessed with gender issues instead of economic ones.

>>472923
Translation:
>One of these ways capitalists stay in power is by promoting gender ideology via lgbtfp NGOs and organizations that traffic in the name of the left

>>472923
Upper body strength actually correlates with individuals political preferences though, and leftists are in fact weaker

>>472919
>I think that eating meat should be against the law
Veganism as a state religion that violates the separation of state and church.
No thanks

>under animal abuse laws.
Once it's possible to make synthetic laboratory meat at scale, animal farming will of course be phased out. All your bullshit is just noise.

>>472927
>Upper body strength actually correlates with individuals political preferences though
Lenin was a gym-bro.
There have been studies that say that physical strength correlates with leftist economic politics, tho no causal links have ever been found. It might just be that most people that are physically strong do strenuous manual labor which doesn't pay much.

>>472922
>Generic testosterone related comment #12456753

NPC please return to the tavern.

>>472928
>Veganism as a state religion that violates the separation of state and church.
No thanks


You're projecting your ideology onto me.

>Once it's possible to make synthetic laboratory meat at scale, animal farming will of course be phased out. All your bullshit is just noise.

>Market relations will work in the favor of the animals we wont need to make murder illegal!

How very liberal of you.

Look at came at this very non agressive and you faggots are still managing to be massively butthurt that some one could believe that certain clases of people and animals should be protected by law, but, that is very normal for any society pretty much. Protected classes existed under the Soviet union, as a matter of fact.

>>472935
You made a bunch of ridiculous claims Ina somewhat I coherent way and now you're mad that you were dismissed outright (see OP) and no one took the time to debate you

>>472935
You are trying to use the state to enforce your moral values, that's not compatible with a secular society. Most people do not see killing animals for food immoral because that's how the human species evolved.

The material reality is that the majority of people will continue eating animal meat until you can substitute it with synthetic meat. Once that can be produced it will be very easy to convince people to stop killing and eating animals, and it will be easy to change moral values. You have to change the base of production first. What you are trying to do is idealist.

The distinctions between humans and food animals is not class division. There are no classes in nature.

>you are still managing to be massively butthurt that some one could believe that certain clases of people should be protected by law
Yes obviously, socialists want a class-less society, and the legal system should also be classless. The law should apply equally to everybody. Even liberals managed to at least in theory conceptualize "equality before the law". You'd have to be crazy backwards to imply that only certain classes of people deserve legal protections.

>under the Soviet union
Go look at soviet production tables, animal produce is listed as high quality protein. If you suggested that the soviet workers shouldn't get that, they would have interpreted this as counter-revolutionary sentiment from the feudal period under Tsarism. During which peasants and workers only got low quality food.

>>472937
>You can't use the state to enforce morality because I don't like it
Yeah cope massively, that's like saying we can't use the state to enforce the morality of being against murder or canablaism, or, being against lynching black people. Of course I want to use the state to enforce my morality. That is what the state exists to do. The reality is that people are goin to eat meat as long as it is legal because most people in the US are massive retards and petulant children who will do something simply because some one told them it is immoral or a bad idea.

Something doesn't have to be about class to be poitical in nature. You are intentionally blinding yourself because you find the proposition that animals are conscious living being uncomfortable and that they aren't just mindless automata like people have believing for hundreds of years….

You are just making excuses and this is exactly why the state needs to make eating meat illegal because retards like you will do anything to confirm their own bias and cont to abuse animals and eat meat.
You aren't a medevilo pesant in the soviet union either retard. You go to the grocery store like everyone else and basically scavenge your food. There's plenty of proteins that can be found in plant food and there's no scientific evidence to support that humans need meat to survive, quite the opposite actually.

>>472938
Massive faggot

>I'm not big enough to impose more will or likeable enough to be convincing, so I want cops to force people to bend to my ghey morals

>>472938
Also, dorky leftists will say shit like this and wander why normal people keep their distance

>>472939
>Oh you can't convince literally the entire planet of something so you are gonna use the state? Well that makes you a pussy!


God damn you are stupid.

>>472940
Keep coping there fag. You selectively apply this specifically to anti meat eating, but, you wouldn't have such an insane goal post for anything else. you didn't even have a real retort other than just calling me names so I will take the W and move on thanks.

>>472942
>and move on
Back to leftypol

>>472943
ITT seething

>Samefag here
It blows me away how leftists, both genuine ones and the ghey and disordered elite-alligned ones, fail to display any 'scientific' acuity for persuasion, building public opinion, mass thought and behavioral shifting, etc.

Instead it's a lot of feelz and muh morals, trying to be edgy and subservience, self-hating animus, or ghey cultural posturing – or at best retreating into left-wing esotericism ('Cockshott, et al say') and other pet theories).

It would be fairly easy for people to say,

>The career politicians and political class today is beholden to a ruling class agenda that decimates the lives of normal working people.

>The wealthy should be put in checked by blanket policies, moratoriums, and simplified taxes instead a Byzantium mountain of regulations which can only be navigated by those who can afford a mountain of lawyers.

>We should put American workers first, and the way we do that is by supporting workers around the world against a common global ruling elite.

Even something like vegan diets…

Even something like that is effectively promoted on a wider scale by a) being fit and charismatic and as a side note vegan, b) doing actually effective marketing based primarily on research/practice carried out to support capital accumulation, or c) directly contributing to the accessibility of plant-based food - i.e., start some sort of business, whether it be a faux leather handbag company, cafe, or full blown industrial production.

The overall point, however, is that the left, both the tolerable ones and the fake-ghey leftists, is responsible for much of it's own irrelevance (it's not the 1980s anymore. Quit coping) and public scorn, respectively.

>>472938
>we can't use the state to enforce the morality
Correct, separation of church and state is not negotiable

>being against murder
Murder is prohibited by the state because the state wants a monopoly on violence, it has nothing to do with morality. The State is basically saying: "You can't murder anybody, because the murder-business is mine, stay off my turf or else".

You generally misunderstand or misrepresent what morality is.
Morality is not a prohibition against doing immoral things.
Morality serves as permission to do things that you otherwise would instinctively perceive as wrong. (assuming you're not a psychopath)

The reason you want to have a law against eating animal derived food, is because you want permission to attack people for eating foods you disapprove off. You most likely understand that attacking other people for what they eat is anti-social behavior and therefore you invent a morality to give you permission. Some people are such pathological assholes that they adopt some random morality because it grants them permission to go which-hunting.

It is very common for religions to have moralistic food restrictions. And while a few of these may have served a practical purpose at some point in the past, religious dietary restrictions are being upheld because it's a moralistic excuse to harass non-believers.

Now here's where we come to the secular society part. You can advocate the benefits of a diet all you want. However if you try to terrorize people with this crap, remember that you're a tiny minority that is being tolerated by the majority, which can effortlessly retaliate 100 fold. Also if you sufficiently damage secular society there will be nothing protecting you from cannibals having a "vegan diet". we'll protect the non-toxic vegans, but not the dietary-zealots

>why the state needs to make eating meat illegal
<I need state terror to impose my diet
>There's plenty of proteins that can be found in plant food
<because my diet is so easy and accessible.
Now there's a contradiction

Capitalist states aren't going to enforce your shit because the meat industry has enough lobbying power to stop you, and it's not worth it for state institutions to create extra political instability over this. Socialist states will also not enforce it because socialist states are proletarian-dictatorships and most proles will not go along with this.

But you still have the option to convince people to eat vegan food by making it actually taste good and easy to prepare.

Socialist states are likely going to accelerate research and development for lab-grown-meat, because animal factory farming is consuming too much food-stuffs and polluting too much water, and the risk of hatching biological contagions is too high. Once that development is complete most of the food will no longer be based on slaughtered animals. That said small scale traditional animal husbandry will not be banned in socialism because that's not possible for ideological reasons. Generally life-styles that do not require exploiting workers are permitted.

>in the US are massive retards and petulant children who will do something simply because some one told them it is immoral or a bad idea.
First of all if this was true, you'd be a massive moron for pushing that button. Second I don't think these people are necessarily childish contrarians. You are trying to wield theocracy-type power over people. History has proven that this kind of theocratic-prohibition-power can be effectively eroded via transgressions. This is a secular reflex.

>>472947
I didn't imply this at all.
Just because some one has an opinion you dislike doesn't mean you should go full nazi over it. if you go NeoNazi over an opinion that you don't like you were always going to find an excuse to go full NeoNazi anyways. It's just petulant kicking and screaming like I said earlier in this conversation;

>NOOO NOO I WANT MY 40 POUND STEAK NOOOOOO

It's like same logic as people who wanted to own slaves.

>>472954

Correct, separation of church and state is not negotiable

If some ones ideology is the same thing as a religion then no ideology can be enforced through the state which is impossible because everyone has ideology. Including you and your meat eater ideology. You are to stupid to understand this fact, you think it's just human nature or whatever, but, yes, you too have state sanctioned ideology enforced and permitted by the state through the mass production and slaughter of animals every single day.

>Murder is prohibited by the state because

This is delusional.
The state grew out of the development of capital as a way to control the working class, but, not all of this control is bad. Again this is starting to sound more and more like the petulant childish whining I was talking about; Are you an anarchist by chance? You seem to think that you should have the freedom to rule over others?
Maybe you are just confused and have no idea what you are really talking about.
Considering ho wmuch goading you have attempted to do in this thread I guess what I said really has you riled up.

>>472960
>Omg you're a nazi
Go back

>>472962
No one said this you fucking smooth brain retard.

>>472961
What a pathetic attempt at turning around the argument. Ideology is not the same as religion. Letting people eat what they want is neither an ideological nor a religious imposition. Nobody is telling you what to eat, you on the other hand are not reciprocating.

Biologically humans are omnivores not herbivores. Most of the plants we can eat and digest had to be cultivated. Climbing down a trophic level to gain more energy didn't come naturally to us, it was really fucking hard. And the next step to a lower trophic level will be about using bio-reactors filled with engineered singlecell microorganisms for synthetic nutrient synthesis, and the hole thing will be powered by electricity from power-plants through electro-chemical intermediaries.

The less technical version: You're a clueless moron, the reason to eat plants was because the overall quantity of available energy was higher. That's it.

You are just moralizing because you want an excuse to order people around. Your moral crusade is pointless, the next phase of human food-production will be based on synthetic nutrients. That will incidentally also end most animal killing/suffering. Your ilk will probably oppose that, because it means fixing the ethical problems in food production without anybody imposing a food-religion, and you'll loose your excuse to badger people.

>>472966
>The less technical version: You're a clueless moron, the reason to eat plants was because the overall quantity of available energy was higher. That's it.
If you want to go even deeper, it's likely that agriculture was developed only after humans hunted all the easy meat to extinction.

>>472966
It totally is; You are ideological like a religious dogmatist ut you refuse to acknowledge it because your own bias and incompetence compels you to believe otherwise. Humans are no obligate omnivores do you know what that means? Obligate?
You are even dumb than I thought if you thought humans are carnivores. Do you even know what that word means? Carnivores only eat meat lmao. And as I said already humans are basically scavengers at this point as none of us do any hunting what so ever. You deppend on the supply chain and the systemic death of other animals to feed your fat stupid ass. You don't understand anything, not history, not human biology, not a damn thing and you are so arrogant you feel compelled to abuse the system here and spout your retarded rhetoric. Early humans rarely ate meat only during times of celebration, or, pure luck. most of the time humans were foraing for fruits and berries as these were readily available and easy to find year round. hunting meat was a HUGE effort by the entire tribe that took weeks, even months of stalking. That is exaxtly what set h8umans above the rest, in addition to our ability to make tools, it was also our ability to out pace most other animals by a long shot. Chasing them for weeks and weeks until they just collapsed from exhaustion. Most of the human diet for centuries was fruits and berries and veggies after the agricultural revolution in certain parts of the world. It wasn't until we started domesticating live stock that we started eating more meat and even then meat was still, again, only consumed in large gatherings.

Even today the diet of most of the rest of the world largely consists of veggies and fruits. Being meat brained in your dumb as logic is 100% burger ideology and you are a retard. Cope seethe you will never be a woman.

>Humans are carnivors

bwahahahaha Literally sub autism score.

>>472973
>>472973
You have no idea what you are talking about and you will never be a woman.

>>472977
Actually I know exactly what I'm talking about and I have no interest in being a woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_overkill_hypothesis

>>472976
>Carnivores only eat meat lmao.
Actually some of the strictest hypercarnivores like big cats still ingest around 10% vegetation, most likely to help with digestion.

>>472979
>Yeah but cats chew on grass when they have stomach aches so that's the same thing as eating vegetables right?

I am wasting my time here.

>>472978
Do you know that a hypothesis is not a verified fact? you know that right?
Even if what you are saying is true (it isn't) that still has little to say about the current state of the human condition, society and history as it exists today. Again you are not ravcing the plainsof africa hunting with your tribe. You probably have deluded yourself into thinking you are, but, you go to the store like everyone else. The modern world makes it so we no long have to include meat in our diets.

>When will dorky millenial online activists and state sanctioned leftist influencers (i.e., teachers with twink tok accounts) realize they are making the right seem cool?

When will you realize this is baby shit?
Tell people to think critically if you want to curb the trend of people letting random tiktok videos fry their brains. Nobody should see a random weird guy on the internet and think "oh, this represents several billion guys from a loose group of people," it's genuinely a retarded way to think. A person who molds their worldview entirely on this is never going to have an accurate perception, they'll fall for whatever outrage porn they happen to see on that day. I guess if you want to exploit this, then go ahead, but it's not a good thing.

>Additionally, many younger people will naturally rebel against the professed values of the generation ahead of them.

Honestly, this is kind of a shallow reading of teenage rebellion, and I think that people may have internalized it, but I don't think that it's strictly true. Teenage rebellion is what happens when you complete sexual maturity and still are living with other adults who expect to have authority over you. The most general form of youth rebellion really boils down to domestic disputes… the idea that it's a totalizing kneejerk rebellion to everything really stems from a stalwart refusal to accept that this is the case. You look at a lot of the historical causes championed by young people outside of the domestic sphere, and it's really difficult to say "oh, they just disagreed with the old guys because they're old" - de-segregation, ending the Vietnam war, ending apartheid… like they often have valid points!

>>472976
>Early humans rarely ate meat only during times of celebration
Depends on the human and time frame. The earliest Homo sapiens were meat machines after having evolved to run down prey on the savannah. Very few animals are as good at endurance running as humans. It was only after they exhausted the food supply of megafauna and replaced it with agriculture (hundreds of thousands of years after Homo sapiens descended from Homo heidelbergensis) that the next major diet shit occurred away from such high levels of meat consumption. These kinds of appeals to ancestry are always trash arguments because humans have adapted to many different diets throughout our history.

>>472980
The point was simply that "carnivores" aren't quite as carnivorous as you probably think. Arguments by analogy or contrast to other animals are prone to problems unless you actually know biology and ecology.

>>472981
>Even if what you are saying is true (it isn't)
There's quite compelling evidence to support it, especially in the Americas and Australia. In most places outside Africa the disappearance of all the large-bodied animals happened shortly after human arrival. If you disagree you'll have to provide us with a different explanation that's more plausible.

>>472984
I don't believe I wrote anything like that.

>>472983
Did you even read anything I said?
I pointed out to you the current narrative that exists in evolutionary biology and human evolution and how we go to where we are.Again hunting takes a massive amout of resources and this will never change even with your meatard ideology trying to justify you behavior in 2023. This is like when people say "yeah well 1% of scientists say global warming isn't real!" when 99% of scientists agree global warming is real. 1% Of cherry picked scientists you specifically hunted down for your apriori existing conclusions about human diet during tribal times doesn't change reality.

big cats and dogs some times eating grass is not "omnivorous" behavior. Please study how scientists create these categories and how they are defined.


And again as I already stated several times even if everything you said was relivant (which it is not) what does that have to do with the conversation at hand? This is all just a massive red herring: This is 2023, not 6000 B.C. You are not a lion

You are not a hunter
You will never be an apex predator
You aren't special.

>>472992
God I wanted to draw a picture of you shoving a dick in your mouth and saying "it's cheat day!" but then I remembered this is the main board and it might not be prudent.

>>472966
>If you want to go even deeper, it's likely that agriculture was developed only after humans hunted all the easy meat to extinction.
People probably figured the part about plants coming from seeds a long time before the shift to agriculture happened. What i'm wondering about is when the hole cultivation-part took place. Did that happen before hunter-gatherers depleted "the easy meat" or after.

>>472976
<humans are omnivores
>muh carnivores
this is one hell of a straw-man you are tearing down

>>472992
Did you even read anything I wrote? I've simply been correcting some misconceptions, not making an argument for or against meat eating.

>>472927
I think the study is flawed because from a baseline standard it’s filled with many biases, which instantly makes the study uncredible. I don’t deny tho that physical fitness translates to genuine political determination regardless of the orientation

Millennials are the new boomers. It doesmt matter where they fall on the political axis. Theyve all become the same complacent fatcats they accuse their elders of being.

The oldest millennials are late thirties/early forties.
Theyre entering middle age.
Middle age is when you have all the sociopolitical power.

>>472982
>Honestly, this is kind of a shallow reading of teenage rebellion, and I think that people may have internalized it, but I don't think that it's strictly true. Teenage rebellion is what happens when you complete sexual maturity and still are living with other adults who expect to have authority over you. The most general form of youth rebellion really boils down to domestic disputes… the idea that it's a totalizing kneejerk rebellion to everything really stems from a stalwart refusal to accept that this is the case. You look at a lot of the historical causes championed by young people outside of the domestic sphere, and it's really difficult to say "oh, they just disagreed with the old guys because they're old" - de-segregation, ending the Vietnam war, ending apartheid… like they often have valid points!

This. Most pwople fail to understamd that young people are not xartoon characters. In fact, adolescwnce wasnt a social construct until the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century.

Preindustrial societoes didnt segregates young people from the elders and there was more efficient transition to adulthood.

In fact, childhood as we know it is also recent.

>>478398
>ignore political positions focus on generational identity politics
does this post glow ?

>>478429
why do you not get upset about slirs against Gen Z or Gen Alpha but when it comes to millennials its a different story?

>>478440
are you identity-nagging me about how i complain about identity-politics. Seriously ?
Don't use any of the generation-idpol, they don't make sense.

Maybe after massive wars like WW2 there's a dramatic-enough, universally-shared life-experience difference between people who lived through the war and those born after, that it could potentially make sense to consider generations. Even then, members of the upper stratas usually don't end up fighting in the trenches or crammed into overcapacity public air-raid-bunkers. So even in that scenario generations remain a dubious proposition.

>>478445
tell that to all the peopke whom whine about "kids these days".

Virtually every adult seems to think of themselves as a "dying breed of nobility" despite doing the same things as those "disrespectful brats" they whine about.

>>472914
lmao all the right does all day is rant about muh gays all day long it sounds like a broken record, they haven't been "cool" in years

also yes the left is cringe tho because they also make everything about muh gays and muh feminism

>When will dorky millenial online activists and state sanctioned leftist influencers (i.e., teachers with twink tok accounts) realize they are making the right seem cool?

Never. The Western Left has literally no self awareness and is basically and echo chamber of upper-middle class dorks. Older Western Leftists are book club dorks, younger leftists are wildly thin skinned humanities brainrot LGBT/Idpol worshipping tumblr dorks. (most of whom drop all their leftist positions for pure liberalism the moment they get a decent job).
Literally been part of the "organised" left since the early 2000s. Nothing ever changes and any attempt at caring about optics is scorned by most "leftists". Unironically, if Gays were actually ideologically aligned to the left (LGBT is actually a center-right liberal demo due to usually high dual income) unironically, most young leftists would be fine with drag queens, transhumanists and splitting BPDs doing most leftist forward facing PR. (look at even our sister board at bunkerchan, which will literally ban you and delete all your posts if you go against even Xenogender rhetoric)
Actually showcasing respectable culture and normal workers like pic related would be hated by most modern young leftists who see the left as a punk style LGBT coded "counter-culture".

even though he's aryan (red hair (viking))

>>482497
Arent olderleftists in the context of the late1990s/earpy 2000s also idpol SJW types?

>>482517
By older, I mean Boomers and Gen X types. Corbyn, Bernie and all the old leftist hangouts that carried the water for socialist groups through the 80s, 90s and 00s.
Millennials yes, are libtarded idpollers.

The right will never be cool. Whenever that happens, the right shows what they are and people think "oh yeah, it's those fags".

Whatever the fuck this is, the only ideas allowed are those of the Party of Order.

>>482562
Idpol started with the Boomers tbh.
Socialism.became bastardised into bohemian hedonism with the flower power movement.

Gen X were the proto-SJWs.
Millennials popularised it.
Both Millennial left and right are due to Gen X.

>>482568
>Idpol started with the Boomers tbh.
All socialism is idpol. You just want the state to steal resources from "bad" people (The Bourgeoisie, The Jews, The Straight White Men) and give it to the "good" people (The Proletariat, The Aryans, The Gay Black transhumanists). Class theory is idpol.

>>482582
>You just want the state to steal resources

Please educate yourself on where value comes from and then ask yourself where corporate profits come from. You subscribe to idealism and identity politics, but marxism does not.

>>482583
>Please educate yourself
If you can't deploy these ideas into a short counter-argument then either it's not relevant or you don't understand it yourself.

>>482582
Marx never considered the bourgeoisie "bad people", quite the contrary he said that the bourgoisie played a positive role in the history for moving humanity from feudal agrarian society towards bourgoisie industrial society. He consider the capitalists as progressive for leveling up the productive forces, and laying the foundations for socialism. Marx's idea was that after the bourgoisie it was the proletariat's turn.

It would be nice if you refrained from engaging in historic fiction. Socialists didn't persecute Jews, it was the capitalists that made Jews their scapegoat. And you will not find serious socialists doing color coding humans as if they were a type of candy or sugary beverage.

>Class theory is idpol.
Nope, you can self-identify as Jeff Bezos all you want, you're not getting ownership of all those data-centers or package distribution logistics out of that.

>>482587
>you will not find serious socialists doing color coding humans as if they were a type of candy or sugary beverage.
So all this "eat the rich" and antifa setting up guillotines on people's front lawns is just for fun then.

>Socialists didn't persecute Jews
I'm pretty sure National Socialists did.

>it was the capitalists that made Jews their scapegoat
The jews who own the banks made themselves the scapegoat. That makes sense.

>you can self-identify as Jeff Bezos all you want
And you can self-identify as the proletariat all you want but you won't be part of the dictatorship.

>>482583
>Please educate yourself on where value comes from
Value is subjective. That's why you pay $200 for a plastic model of your favorite animu girl with a giant futa cock and I would throw it in the trash.

>ask yourself where corporate profits come from
They come from you buying shit that corporations sell.

>>482588
>So all this "eat the rich" and antifa setting up guillotines on people's front lawns is just for fun then.
In Marxist theory societies and economic systems change because the advances in the mode of production make it impossible for the old system to continue. For example most feudal societies couldn't deal with the industrial mode of production, and they became capitalist societies.

Some of the feudal societies reformed them selves into bourgeois democratic capitalist societies with very little disruption, because the feudal lords yielded. They gradually gave all political power to the parliaments of bourgeois democracy. Most of these converted their feudal estates into bourgeois capital. Some managed to adapt to capitalism, at least for a while, very few aristocratic-capitalists remain today.

Other feudal society had obstinate feudal lords that refused all reforms and many of those had their heads liberated during the days where bleeding edge democracy celebrated liberty equality and fraternity very keenly.

In a few places the obstinate feudal lords could repress entire societies and lead them towards a dead end. These feudal societies became easy pickings for powerful capitalist conquerors with superior industrial technology. A few legacy feudal societies got modernized by communist powers, those were the lucky ones, at least comparably speaking. More people survived the communist modernization than capitalist conquerors.

So in conclusion there are many way a society can switch to a new mode of production, sometimes that involves gravity accelerated instruments for french haircuts, sometimes it doesn't.

>I'm pretty sure National Socialists did.
Never mind the false labels, the nazi fascists served the nastiest part of the big-bourg imperialist capitalists. Never forget it was that big socialist power who did most of the nazi smashing, with some help from the somewhat more democratically minded capitalist powers.

>The jews who own the banks made themselves the scapegoat.
To a socialists a banker is just another cog in the capitalist machine. I can't grasp why you would care about the cog having a Jewish identity. It seems like you have brain-worms, and that's the least rude statement i can muster. It's capitalist cogs in a capitalist machine doing capitalist things.

>Value is subjective. That's why you pay $200 for a plastic model of your favorite animu
Not that anon, but lets do some brutally simplified economic value theory.
Money buys human labor time. If you had a replicator that could assemble objects at the molecular level, only requiring energy and matter inputs, but no human toil, plastic dolls with questionable aesthetics would cost nothing.

>>482590
It wasn't impossible to "stop capitalism", as if this just happened by anonymous inertia. Throughout their history, the commons were seeking to enter the nobility, and that's what purchasing venal office was. The professions of the commoners that won in the liberal revolutions were already attaining the privileges of the nobility, and the commoners were not a united bloc with a singular ideology as such. It's the same with the ideologies as such of their associations like the Jacobin club and the secret societies. These outfits weren't united by an ideology or a singular thought-form, but were associations of men who climbed the ranks of that social hierarchy. There were liberal nobles who saw the revolution as a way to carry out their intercine struggle in new conditions, if we speak of France. How this worked in England and America is a very different story.

The ancien regime falls because the agents who would have maintained it saw no reason to continue it. There is a long trajectory of feudal privileges being displaced by the autocratic and despotic tendencies of the 16th-18th centuries, and that trend line didn't really go away with "revolution". It rebranded, found entry into the new way of doing things, and the game of musical chairs settled in the early 19th century.

The revolutions themselves all stem from 1776 in one way or another, and what the British Empire was aiming for to take the world, and their piratical approach to their Empire.

By time Louis XVI is there, he's a weak king, and doesn't have the heart for intrigue in him. Some would say he was a decent human being by the standards of his class, which doesn't say much, but mostly, the nobility were already distressed with the situation and the games played with the wealth of the nation - like entering the American Rebellion for spurious reasons that are the great "open mystery" of the period, which explains a lot of what was really happening and is a favorite of the conspiracist theory of history. This event was not self-contained in an ecosystem and then reproduced by "the theory". France faced conflict from the aristocratic order of Europe who were remarkably disinterested in the wages of war until they started losing and the French installed republics or kings of their choosing, and this was always understood as putting a rubber stamp on the effort to conquer Europe. At this time, no one but the French thinks of themselves as "national actors", and French nationalism is a new thing with the revolution. That was the thing that they really had to contain, and the most lasting effect of it.

If you look at how the French monarchy understood economics, they had their theory before the revolution, and the revolution wasn't really waged over economic ideas. The liberalizing tendency had more to do with the interests of actors in France and globally, then any belief that liberalism worked like magic. There was a theory of physiocracy, but the thing with them is that the physiocrats were more in line with the ancien regime than a naive faith in free trade. What the physiocrats wrote about was a precursor to both the idea of a planned economy - a precursor to the socialist idea - and a precursor to biological politics and biologically centered economic thought, using the example of economic life and the land as an organism with blood flows that could be regulated. That was what Quesnay invoked, due to his background as a physician.

All of these things are very interesting if you dig into them, and that's why I disdain these grand narratives that are divorced from history that can be independently verified. Any political event involves the agency of those things in the world that have the greatest stake in it - human beings, and particular human beings.