[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1696653707868.jpeg ( 5.54 KB , 300x168 , images (6).jpeg )

 No.475174

<Capitalism has already been superceded

Some sort of bureaucratic managerial mixed economy exists in all major developed economies today. It is the inevitable political development at this stage of history owing the the current level of the productive forces. The central economic impulse isn't the further development of the means of production in order to *produce commodities.* As it stands, only a fraction in the labor force is set to work in producing commodities. A larger percentage is involved either in the realization of value or the social maintenance of power - that it's to say, and increasing proportion of the population is as divorced as ever from production and increasingly devoted to employment in the tumorous and parasitic outgrowths of the economy. Likewise, an ever increasing proportion of the economic surplus is devoted toward the expansion of the infrastructure of services and, more importantly, control. An increasing social investment occurs in fields like marketing and sales, security (ranging from web3 doorbell cameras to rent-a-cops to state militaries), media in it's wide variety of forms, psychological and sociological research, and 'governance' on both a local and international scale. In Gramscian terms, this is an explosion in the size and importance of the state vis-a-vis and over the forces of the productive economy. That is to say, the *capitalists* (which developed and began to supercede the lorded administers of feudalism during the 16-18th centuries) have themselves begun to be superceded by a growing, new, highly technological, secular, and 'scientific' administrator and managerial class.

The primary aim is always power. For a brief period in history, the private ownership of the means of production - to be a capitalist - was the best means to amass power. However, in the sort of post capitalist future that is emerging, those who control (but perhaps not directly 'own') large levers of the economy and structures of control form a sort of oligarchy that simple seeks - directly - to expand its control.

This impulse is increasingly turned inward and against all forms of life, up to and including increasingly levels of power against it's own citizenry, with more and more elements of daily life intertwined with technology, control, and economy.

As a phase in the mode of production, this is a sort of toothpaste that's not going back into the tube. But it doesn't have to be terrible.

<Vitalistic socialism

The solution - a sort of 'sucks least' option - is vitalistic socialism. Politically, this would be a sort of meritocratic uniparty-led government which pursued a classical progressive agenda - that of fostering a better population of better individuals.

Some sort of 'mixed economy' with a corporatist state is inevitable. The question becomes, what social aims should it serve. Rather than promoting servility or the sacred cow of equality (whole maintaining a de facto ruling elite - as has always been the case, even in Marxist Leninist states), vitalistic socialism would strive toward national and individual improvement through self-actualizing struggle.

<Futurism vs Conservativism

There's no point in trying to recreate or even hold onto the past. Certain lessons of practical wisdom ought to buy taken from the past, but we must keep our eyes forward. And successful society in the future is one which uses social technology which to facilitate individual development and freedom.

<Vitalism vs Equality

The primary impulse of all old leftism, the stale mixture that has produced nothing good over the last 100 or so years, is a vague impulse toward "equality."

The alt left sweeps this away. We support vitalism. We want a system that promotes a vigorous and creative life of speed, challenge, and even pleasure - one which truly fulfils the Marxist goal of the free development of the individual. While the current order promotes a degree of security (and hence stagnation leading to decay), alt left socialism promote revolutionary struggle as an ongoing end, not just a means. Vitalistic socialism utilizes the power of the state to craft higher forms of mankind - both on an individual and collective level.

There is no egalitarian endpoint of utopian communism marked by a harmonic 'end of history' via the termination of struggle. It's naive to believe classes, castes, and hierarchy will ever disappear. Rather, the alt left desires a socialism of continuous struggle, one in which competition and class is consciously promoted to the end of excellence and greatness.

"Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win, Dare to Struggle More" is our motto. The alt left represent the true path of revolutionary struggle, now and in the future.

<Space communism of a master galactic race

Endless conquest of the universe while honing the human spirit is the teleological goal of the alt left. But we must first destroy the metaphorical bugman within before we are ready to face literal bugmen beyond our galaxy.
>>

 No.475189

File: 1696688484967-0.jpg ( 63.21 KB , 750x469 , 123000001.jpg )

File: 1696688484967-1.jpg ( 88.86 KB , 800x575 , 123000004.jpg )

File: 1696688484967-2.jpg ( 326.84 KB , 1133x1500 , 123000005.jpg )

File: 1696688484967-3.jpg ( 270.79 KB , 1907x1470 , bfab517e9ce891fc6b799ab1b3….jpg )

File: 1696688484967-4.jpg ( 74.09 KB , 750x456 , flapjacks.jpg )

someone give a summary of this cunt's cunt
>>

 No.475192

File: 1696689408434.jpg ( 46.8 KB , 460x564 , az2z70m.jpg )

>>475174
>Some sort of bureaucratic managerial mixed economy exists in all major developed economies today.
And how is that going for you?
>>

 No.475193

The left is devoid of any meaningful technical language to describe society. Completely devoid. Wouldn't help them because their brains have been melted by so much ideology - and they actually do believe this is a description of reality. It's insane.
>>

 No.475194

All of this by the way because it's too much for them to acknowledge the centrality of eugenics. They would make elaborate pseudo-theories to ignore what common sense tells them - that eugenics is the ruling idea and eugenics won. Now there is no hope, thanks to these assholes.
>>

 No.475195

And these stupid theories are pushed by a very vocal minority, often shills, but the left is so devoid of purpose that they either go along with the useful idiots for grifting, or they give up in exasperation. The conditioning and shrieking sets in if anyone even speaks of a single honest thing, and that is deeply set in the post-1980 cohort. They're completely brainwashed and beyond hope. Eugenics won. Satan won. Failed race.
>>

 No.475196

File: 1696690488258.gif ( 2.74 MB , 640x640 , elmo-dance-elmo-swag.gif )

>>475193
>>475194
>>475195
>>

 No.475198

>>475174
>Some sort of bureaucratic managerial mixed economy exists in all major developed economies today.

Literally every stage of capitalism has had gov't involvement; if you use "mixed economy" this loosely, you can apply it to any era of capitalism… it's not meaningful. Also, even if you narrow it down to actual SocDem economies, that's still a capitalist model, albeit with a larger public sector and more planning. Jussayin'!

>>475189
Something something PMC!!! something something Socialism is when you do Starship Troopers unironically
>>

 No.475209

File: 1696707088540.png ( 593.99 KB , 694x710 , 0000.png )

>>475174


Communism assumes that people will work diligently for the common good without the need for personal incentives. However, space communism faces human nature-related challenges
In a society where there is no personal ownership or material gain from hard work, individuals may lack the motivation to innovate or excel, hindering technological progress necessary for survival and expansion.

The tragedy of the commons concept suggests that shared resources can be overexploited or mismanaged when individual incentives are absent. In space colonies, this could result in resource depletion and environmental damage.

People inherently possess varying degrees of individualism and collectivism. Striking a balance between personal autonomy and collective responsibility can be challenging and may lead to social conflicts.
The practicality of space communism from an economic perspective is questionable the economic Calculation problem is Space colonies require careful allocation of resources and labor, a task that is made difficult without market prices and private property to guide economic decision-making.

Investment and Risk is the development and maintenance of space colonies entail substantial risks and costs. Without the potential for personal gain or financial incentives, it may be challenging to secure investments and motivate individuals to participate.

Economic Diversity is A diverse economy with specialization in various industries is essential for the long-term viability of a spacefaring society. Space communism may struggle to foster economic diversity without the competitive drive seen in market-based economies.

While space communism may appear utopian in concept, it faces significant practical challenges that make its implementation in space colonies highly improbable. Resource allocation issues, the complexity of human nature, and economic viability concerns all cast doubt on the feasibility and sustainability of space communism. For the successful colonization of space, alternative economic and governance models that address these challenges are likely to be more viable options.

tldr- Space communism's lofty ideals of resource sharing, human selflessness, and collective ownership seem quaint and unworkable in the harsh, resource-scarce, and competitive environment of space colonization.
>>

 No.475211

File: 1696707522933.gif ( 281.58 KB , 573x573 , 1692772491113389.gif )

>>475209
Holy shit please go back to 4chan and leave our board alone with your retarded meme understanding of comunism. Communism in no way some how replaces incentives to work with "the common good" Communism is the realization that we all share a common struggle in our existence as working people and that the betterment of one individual is also the betterment of all individuals. Everyone relies on some type of labor to survive. Just because you wont be getting your lambo under communism doesn't mean it's some "greater good" meme argument you learned from 1984

>The tragedy of the commons concept suggests that shared resources can be overexploited or mismanaged when individual incentives are absent. In space colonies, this could result in resource depletion and environmental damage.

The hilarious thing about this is Elonor Olstrom actually recieved a Nobel Prize for debunking this gay argument and actually proved, scienfitically, that humans, when free of hierarcical domination of capital, mutualistically coorperate with one another and, funny enough, it's the corporations that are destroying the commons. Privatization is what has destroyed the commons because capital is so much more powerful than any other entity on the planet.

Communsm is not utopian and what is arguably more utopic is the ideaology of liberatian capitalism where some how people will just magically abide by the NAP even though capitalism is simultaneously incentivized only by the economic motivation for profits.

Please, for the love of god, read something that does not just agree with your presuppositions bout reality.
>>

 No.475215

>>475209
>In a society where there is no personal ownership or material gain from hard work, individuals may lack the motivation to innovate or excel
It is worse than that because your life is the most precious and limited resource a person has. It is utterly insane to expect somebody to waste it doing work for some vague and unmeasurable "common good".
>>

 No.475216

File: 1696708416683.png ( 706.21 KB , 733x798 , 923.png )

>>475211
It's quite amusing to see someone attempting to defend communism with such self-assured arrogance while completely missing the point. The frustration expressed here is with the oversimplified and utopian vision of communism, not a genuine understanding of its complexities and historical implementations. Communism has repeatedly failed in practice, leading to oppressive regimes and economic disasters, precisely because it naively assumes that people will willingly work for the collective without individual incentives. The idea that "the betterment of one individual is also the betterment of all individuals" sounds nice in theory, but it ignores fundamental aspects of human nature and the need for personal motivation. So, before arrogantly dismissing valid critiques, one should take a closer look at the realities of communism as it has played out in the real world.
>>475215
Oh, the melodramatic hyperbole! It's almost comical how some individuals can so dramatically misinterpret the concept of working for the common good. No one is advocating for people to "waste" their lives on some nebulous ideal. In reality, the idea is to create a society where collective efforts benefit everyone, where individuals are freed from the grind of wage slavery and exploitation, and where they can pursue fulfilling work that truly matters. It's quite astonishing that some cannot grasp the notion that a fair and equitable system could actually lead to a more meaningful and prosperous life for all, rather than obsessively guarding their own perceived self-importance.
>>

 No.475217

>>475216
>oppressive regimes and economic disasters
So capitalism?
>>

 No.475219

>>475216

>It's quite amusing to see someone attempting to defend communism with such self-assured arrogance while completely missing the point. The frustration expressed here is with the oversimplified and utopian vision of communism, not a genuine understanding of its complexities and historical implementations.

Literally what the fuck does this have to do with anything? Who are you, a person who has clearly never even read anything even remotely marxist, to say what is and is not an "over simplification" This isn't even actual communistic theory this is just simply factual information that a simple deductive thought process could lead even a small child toward. Humans are self interested animals, communism is self interested as it is not in my own political interest and the interest of my class to be controlled nearly 24/7 by capitalist rulers.

>Communism has repeatedly failed in practice

Communism has never existed on the planet you dumb retarded faggot.
The soviet union was not an example of a communist economy. The USSR was an example of communists taking control of an economic system and building up the forces of production, but, still existing with in the confines of the capitalist economic system. Not that you are going to be honest enough to even have this conversation you are just going to keep regurgitating your propoganda because you are a dumb fuck, kek.


I haven't "dismissed" anything. I gave you a valid critique and you sat here and play bingo with your ideology and even completely ignored the whole fact that I pointed out that tragedy of the commons has been long debunked for nearly a decade now. you clearly don't actually have any arguments and are just looking to reify your own ideology which if you read the rules is bannable for right wing faggots here.
>>

 No.475220

File: 1696709421851-0.png ( 325.37 KB , 539x298 , 0001.png )

File: 1696709421851-1.png ( 267.18 KB , 789x278 , 0003.png )

File: 1696709421851-2.png ( 91.65 KB , 1061x651 , 0004.png )

>>475217
Space capitalism, as some might condescendingly argue, could incentivize rapid technological advancement by tapping into the profit motive. It might foster competition and innovation, albeit driven by self-interest, potentially opening the cosmos to resource extraction and colonization. However, the ultimate success of this endeavor would depend on careful regulation to prevent exploitation and protect celestial environments.
>>475219
It's rather amusing how someone can confidently assert that the Soviet Union wasn't a genuine example of a communist economy, as if they possess a profound understanding of the complexities of economic systems and ideology. The truth is that the USSR, under the leadership of the Communist Party, implemented a centrally planned economy with state ownership of key industries and resources—a quintessential feature of communism. While it's reasonable to critique the specific execution and results, dismissing it outright as not being communist is a rather simplistic oversimplification. So, before indulging in arrogant dismissal, one should consider the historical context and nuanced debates surrounding the Soviet economic model.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
>>

 No.475223

>>475216
>No one is advocating for people to "waste" their lives on some nebulous ideal.
The whole point of free market capitalism is that everything has a price, so you know exactly how much value you are generating for somebody else based on how much they voluntarily pay you.

Remove the whole concept of private property and now you have no way of judging which course of action will generate the most value (if any). The point is not that all work towards the collective good is a waste, the point is that you have no way of knowing.

>In reality, the idea is to create a society where collective efforts benefit everyone, where individuals are freed from the grind of wage slavery and exploitation, and where they can pursue fulfilling work that truly matters.
Now you've skipped ahead to higher communism where you're living in a magic world with infinite resources and it literally doesn't matter what you do. Marxism is not a blueprint for getting to such a society it just isn't.
>>

 No.475225

>>475220
The soviet union literally was not communism you are just an ideological faggot who doesn't want to engage in anything but jerking himself off over his own ideology.
>>

 No.475230

File: 1696711551656.jpg ( 71.24 KB , 680x711 , 1692804399983320.jpg )

>>475225
Communism is and always has been understood as a classless. stateless, moneyless society where the means of production are collectivelly owned (democratically) The soviet union was an attempt at a lower stage of communism and a shitty one at the. No one disagreed with you that the Communist government of the USSR was not Communist you fucking moronic faggot. The economic system was not communist in any sense of the word, though. it's debatable if it was even socialist as many socialists of that time argued against the validity of the USSR in the socialist space at the time. All you are showing us is that you have never actually had this conversation before and that you aren't interested in anything other than just repeating the same retarded shit you have heard from your retarded faggot friends on failchan.

Come back tomorrow and try again.
>>

 No.475231

File: 1696711740947.png ( 54.44 KB , 668x800 , nope.png )

>>475174
>Politically, this would be a sort of meritocratic uniparty-led government which pursued a classical progressive agenda - that of fostering a better population of better individuals.
What does a "uniparty-led government" mean ?
The only way to get a better population is by changing economics to produce low-wealth-inequality distribution. High wealth-concentration into a few hands and degrading conditions that damage people are two sides of the same coin.

>It's naive to believe classes, castes, and hierarchy will ever disappear.
Castes are feudal social divisions, while not entirely gone, those have been severely eroded. They will have entirely disappeared by the end of this century.

Classes are still being reproduced in capitalism, but once the mode of production gets switched to socialism those will also get phased out as well. It's utterly delusional to think that things like classes or casts could be eternal. The only people who think that are reactionaries.

Socialists in the past do have used hierarchy for social coordination, so that might endure a while longer. Tho the next socialist thrust might be using modal hierarchies, where different material conditions change what rank a person has.
>>

 No.475233

File: 1696712571843-0.png ( 383.15 KB , 521x421 , 0001.png )

File: 1696712571843-1.png ( 373.27 KB , 547x372 , 0002.png )

>>475225
It's rather amusing how some individuals resort to condescending language when discussing complex historical and ideological topics like the Soviet Union and communism. While it's true that the USSR's implementation of communism had significant departures from Marxist theory, suggesting that it "literally was not communism" is a simplification. The Soviet Union was, in fact, a self-proclaimed socialist state with centralized planning and state ownership of key industries, aligning with many principles of communism, albeit with authoritarian deviations. Engaging in a meaningful discussion about the nuances of these historical events requires more than dismissive rhetoric; it demands a careful examination of the historical record and ideological complexities.
>>

 No.475234

>>475233
What is communism to you?
>>

 No.475236

File: 1696712985468.png ( 254.68 KB , 540x256 , 000.png )

>>475234
>What is communism to you?
Communism, dear interlocutor, is a grandiose ideological experiment that promises the redistribution of wealth, eradication of class distinctions, and the establishment of a classless society. However, it often overlooks the inherent complexities of human nature and the practical challenges in implementing such a utopian vision. While its ideals may inspire some, the historical record of communist regimes reveals a stark contrast between theory and practice. So, to me, communism is an alluring theory that often falls short in the real world, showcasing the importance of balancing ideals with practicality.
>>

 No.475237

>>475233
>It's rather amusing how some individuals resort to condescending language when discussing complex historical and ideological topics like the Soviet Union and communism.

<Waaaa waaa my pssy is on fire please stop being mean to me even though I clearly am not being charitable what so ever and infact am just being a masive smarmy faggot please don't be mean to me!

Kill yourself.

>While it's true that the USSR's implementation of communism had significant departures from Marxist theory, suggesting that it "literally was not communism" is a simplification.


Again I want to know exactly what you define as communism because as I recall from reading marx karl marx tends to agree that communism "Higher stage communism" is defined as a classless moneyless statless society so while you appear to have been forced to ceed the fact that the USSR was, indeed, a serious departure from common socialist theory at the time you still seem to think you can double down by furhter moving the goal post so I want to hear it from you: What do you think communism is? Define it for me since I clearly don't know what I am talking about after all.

>he Soviet Union was, in fact, a self-proclaimed socialist state

The DPRK is a self proclaimed Democratic republic. You realize anyone can say anything about themselves right and that doesn't make it true? I'm god, I guess, According to your own logic you should begin worshiping me.

>centralized planning and state ownership of key industries, aligning with many principles of communism

Karl Marx wrote about state control of key industries in the communist manifesto and central banking, but, then after the Paris Commune recanted this methodology in his titled work "On the Paris Commune" where he states this was a much more favorable relationship to production than his early theorizing. None the less even by early marx the USSR simply was not communist economicaly.

>it demands a careful examination of the historical record and ideological complexities.

farts
>>

 No.475238

>>475236
>Communism, dear interlocutor, is a grandiose ideological experiment that promises the redistribution of wealth, eradication of class distinctions, and the establishment of a classless society. However, it often overlooks the inherent complexities of human nature and the practical challenges in implementing such a utopian vision. While its ideals may inspire some, the historical record of communist regimes reveals a stark contrast between theory and practice. So, to me, communism is an alluring theory that often falls short in the real world, showcasing the importance of balancing ideals with practicality.

Completely wrong and ahistorical and fucking retard as I already knew. Communism is a Economic system based on the collectivization of the means of production and the abolition of the wage system. There are many different ideologies on how to get there but that has nothing to do with anything. You are trying to lump every one of the hundreds of different ideologies and infinite opinions on the subject and demand that no one can go outside of your predefined strawman, but, you are just a massive faggot and no one has to listen to you last chance to actually engage seriously or I am going to ban you permanently for ban evasion.
>>

 No.475240

File: 1696713411431-0.png ( 42.23 KB , 1000x476 , human nature.png )

File: 1696713411431-1.gif ( 34.25 KB , 419x559 , regime.gif )

>>475236
>muh human nature
Seriously go read what Marx wrote about species being.
It certainly runs counter to being lorded over by ruling classes
>muh communist regimes
you meant to say communist governments
>>

 No.475242

File: 1696713718787-0.jpg ( 85.97 KB , 640x905 , c84b54d5bdde4f8d6573edade6….jpg )

File: 1696713718787-1.jpg ( 93.32 KB , 694x1024 , 0001.jpg )

File: 1696713718787-2.jpg ( 32.57 KB , 640x360 , 0002.jpg )

File: 1696713718787-3.jpeg ( 426.67 KB , 2294x1381 , 0003.jpeg )

File: 1696713718787-4.jpg ( 85.97 KB , 640x905 , 0004.jpg )

>>475237
Ah, the audacity of assuming that you alone possess a comprehensive understanding of complex ideologies. Well, let me enlighten you, as you seem to be in need of such wisdom. Karl Marx's concept of communism indeed encompasses a classless, moneyless, and stateless society—a utopian vision that has yet to be realized in practice. However, the devil, or perhaps the dialectic, lies in the details. What you may be missing in your zealous critique is that the path to achieving such an ideal involves various transitional stages, which can be interpreted in different ways. So, while I appreciate your passion, I would suggest that you delve deeper into the nuances of political theory before assuming that others are moving goalposts or lacking comprehension. After all, there's more to Marxism than meets the eye.
>>475238
Ah, it's quite adorable when someone attempts to define communism in such simplistic terms, as if the rich tapestry of economic and political ideologies could be neatly encapsulated in a single sentence. While your idealized definition is charming in its naivety, the historical reality is far more complex. The practice of communism, as seen in various regimes, often involved authoritarianism, economic inefficiencies, and the suppression of individual liberties, factors you conveniently omit from your idyllic description. But do carry on with your one-liner definitions; it's rather quaint.
go ahead ban me permanently janny bitch site is a ded whores corpse :P
>>475240
its charming that you assume I haven't delved into the depths of Marx's work. The concept of "species being" indeed features prominently in his philosophical musings, highlighting the potential for human fulfillment through creative and productive labor. However, quoting Marx is only the beginning of a substantive discussion. Engaging in a thoughtful dialogue about his ideas requires more than a mere citation; it necessitates a deep understanding of his entire body of work and its implications for contemporary society. So, by all means, let's elevate the discourse beyond pithy quotes.
>>

 No.475243

communism is also human nature
>>

 No.475244

>>475243
>>

 No.475245

>>475242
>>475242
Considering that ever single society that has pre dated industrial capital has had retards exactly like you fumbling over thier words and their own ideology and regurgitating talking points to defend the crown and whip hand over fist I some how do not believe that a classless soceity is that out of the realm of possibility. As has already been pointed out to you the vestigial organs of previous systems such as feudalism still exist to this day. The only utopian here is you who believes that capitalism can run free from the control of the neoliberal establishment and that some how this is actually favorable because you are brainwashed.

>Ah, it's quite adorable when someone attempts to define communism in such simplistic terms, as if the rich tapestry of economic and political ideologies could be neatly encapsulated in a single sentence.

That's litearlly exactly what you did you moron

>While your idealized definition is charming in its naivety, the historical reality is far more complex.

That is literally what it is defined as by every single communist even predating karl marx.
I know the fact that communism isn't what you were told by everyone in your society since you were born can be jaring but it is the truth.


>The practice of communism, as seen in various regimes, often involved authoritarianism, economic inefficiencies, and the suppression of individual liberties, factors you conveniently omit from your idyllic description. But do carry on with your one-liner definitions; it's rather quaint.

You are rather a massive faggot. I do not support the USSR so you are just cont to argue a strawman and desperately trying to get me to conform to your faggy canned arguments. Any modern communist movment that exists today that is worth its weight believes in the democratic control of production by a syndicate of unions mutually and democratically running and controlling the work place. Since you clearly lack the intellecual capacity to have such arguments you're deff free to go back to 4chan, or, leftypol where you can argue to your hearts content about "how bad le heckin soviet union was so communism deff isn't passible."
It's literally the exact same behavior as religious cultists.

>go ahead ban me permanently janny bitch site is a ded whores corpse

No one here cares

> :P


Literally 2006 newfag
>>

 No.475246

>>475243
:P
Ah, the age-old assertion that communism is "human nature." It's quite quaint how some cling to this idealistic notion, failing to
recognize the complexities of human behavior and the inherent flaws of rigid systems.
>>475245
Ah, the classic ad hominem attack
:P
>>

 No.475247

>>475246
Ah the classic :P
>>

 No.475248

File: 1696714799546.jpg ( 31.42 KB , 460x257 , me.jpg )

>>475247
:P
:P
:P
>>

 No.475250

>>475248
:P
:P
:P
:P
:P
>>

 No.475256

File: 1696716002486-0.jpg ( 73.53 KB , 750x1000 , bg,f8f8f8-flat,750x,075,f-….jpg )

File: 1696716002486-1.png ( 489.21 KB , 492x583 , 09.png )

File: 1696716002486-2.png ( 310.97 KB , 468x497 , 082.png )

File: 1696716002486-3.png ( 129.83 KB , 432x415 , 01.png )

File: 1696716002486-4.png ( 476.8 KB , 452x656 , 092.png )

>>475245
It's unfortunate that you perceive any discussion that doesn't align with your viewpoint as a strawman argument. Constructive dialogue thrives on diverse perspectives and critical thinking. Your portrayal of modern communist movements as exclusively rooted in democratic control of production by workers' syndicates is a valid perspective. However, it's important to recognize that diverse interpretations and approaches exist within the broader spectrum of leftist ideologies. Engaging in respectful discourse means acknowledging the nuances and complexities of these ideologies rather than resorting to derogatory language or sweeping generalizations. Open dialogue encourages the exchange of ideas and mutual understanding, promoting intellectual growth for all participants.
>>

 No.475257

File: 1696716252943.jpg ( 54.33 KB , 960x532 , hitherto history always ha….jpg )

>>475242
>you assume I haven't delved into the depths of Marx's work.
Because your stale arguments for eternal class division and "human nature" all got already refuted by Marx.

Ruling classes are not eternal because they only last as long as the mode of production that spawned them does. Technological advances to the means of production will eventually necessitate new modes of production. If individual ruling classes are overthrown, that means the cumulative effect will be the end of class divisions as a hole

What you are calling human nature is but an attempt of reifying what humans are under the yoke of capital, every system tries to do this shit. If you ask a feudal lord from 500 years ago, he's gonna tell you it's human nature to till fields with an ox over and over, and he'll tell you that this will be so for all eternity.

We're just living in pre-history, history proper will begin once class society is in the dustbin of history.
>>

 No.475260

>>475256
chatGPT is so condescending jesus christ.
>>

 No.475261

>>475260
I fucking know right?
>>

 No.475264

File: 1696716963172-0.png ( 297.67 KB , 289x623 , 01.png )

File: 1696716963172-1.png ( 280.76 KB , 362x310 , 02.png )

>>475257
Your assertion seems to oversimplify the dynamics of ruling classes and technological progress. Ruling classes have demonstrated remarkable adaptability throughout history, and technological advances often lead to new forms of inequality rather than the end of class divisions. The idea that overthrowing individual ruling classes will magically eliminate all class divisions is a utopian oversimplification at best.
>>475260
some people interpret straightforward information as condescension. Perhaps a dose of rationality and objectivity might help in better understanding
>>

 No.475265

>>475264
Yeah no shit but this is exactly what marx was talking about. Look up the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Eventually the tendency of capitalism to be so revolutionary, so hyper productive, so innovative, that the system eventually breaks down and manufacturing becomes so proficient it makes it impossible to make profits through a deflationary general market tendency in profits.
>>

 No.475266

File: 1696717617080.jpg ( 82.32 KB , 1024x1024 , 06.jpg )

>>475265
Well, congratulations on regurgitating Marx 101 for us. It's almost as if you just discovered the Communist Manifesto in your college dorm room. But here's a little reality check: the world has evolved quite a bit since Marx's time, and while his theories are interesting, they're hardly gospel.
let's not act like we've got it all figured out just because we read a few pages of Das Kapital. Innovation and progress have been the driving forces of our society, and capitalism, for all its problems, has played a significant role in that.
go ahead, keep quoting Marx bitch, but remember that retarded slogans don't magically solve the the real world.
>>

 No.475268

>>475266
This AI is malfunctioning
>>

 No.475269

File: 1696718326278.png ( 784.32 KB , 1051x1500 , anime_hair_USA_bikini-1621….png )

>>475268
beep boop you bitch
>>

 No.475270

>>475266
>Ad-hominem

So you have no argument here other than just saying "Yeah well Marx is old!"
So is that a concession on your part or….?
>>

 No.475274

File: 1696718971946-0.png ( 231.24 KB , 452x240 , 03.png )

File: 1696718971946-1.png ( 559.56 KB , 673x423 , 04.png )

File: 1696718971946-2.png ( 283.77 KB , 481x256 , 05.png )

File: 1696718971946-3.png ( 202.18 KB , 485x295 , 06.png )

>>475270
>>

 No.475275

for me its consil communism / individual anarchism
>>

 No.475277

>>475274
Lol, ok, i guess i'll take the W. Thanks.

>>475275
Frankly I try and keep it as open ended as possibly as not to bog my self down in ideology. I think that any step into the real world from capitalism to communism will need to be as flexible as possible. Ziezek actually had some good points on this account.
>>

 No.475280

<OP here
>>475198
>Every stage of capitalism had govt involvement
And feudalism had markets and private capital. What's your point?
>>475209
You got hung up on the word communism but otherwise didn't seem to actually read the OP. I forgive you since the rest of this thread was a hilarious exchange between you and one of the mods
>>475216
>one should take a closer look at the realities of communism as it has played out in the real world
Every attempt at communist has ended up in a technocratic oligarchy… Very similar to what exists in the west as well. The point of OP is that some sort of technocratic oligarchy is inevitable. It's just a question of the cultural and social characteristics of such. OP doesn't paint 'space communism' as an egalitarian utopia, you lovable derpy autist, but rather a technocratic society which aims toward human excellence, much the same way a as military does (a functional military, not a woke temp work agency for single mothers like America has)
.
>>475220
Pretty ghey that he was banned for this. Wtf are the jannies smoking today?
The USSR actively suppressed private capital, especially under Stalin (and in contrast to the desires of Bukharin, who was also kinda based, much more so that Trotsky)
>>475223
Has a good point. Markets actually help determine an ideal allocation of resources and labor. As it turns out, bureaucracies aren't the best at centrally planning how much lettuce to grow, lol
>>475231
>The only way to get a better population is by changing economics to produce low-wealth-inequality distribution.
Agree. High wealth inequality erodes social cohesion and creates a bunch of shitty people.
>Castes are feudal social divisions, while not entirely gone, those have been severely eroded. They will have entirely disappeared by the end of this century.

>Classes are still being reproduced in capitalism, but once the mode of production gets switched to socialism those will also get phased out as well. It's utterly delusional to think that things like classes or casts could be eternal. The only people who think that are reactionaries.
It's this sort of naive self assuredness that makes it easy for the Prager U fanboy to dunk on you. There's absolutely no indication in history that either castes or classes will ever be eradicated entirely.
It's not some binary options between classlessness/castelessness or extreme inequality
>>475236
On point. That's why OP somewhat redefines 'communism' to mean something much closer to what exists in the real world - a technocracy with a common purpose - rather than a utopian ideal that exists on paper only.
<inb4 that sounds oppressive
Ok, enjoy getting knifed by a feral scholars in America/Europe and having your kid groomed by a childless preschool teacher
>>475237
>Karl Marx said…
Who cares, nerd
>>475238
>I'll ban you
The inner .ogre jannie reveals itself
>>475242
>The practice of communism, as seen in various regimes, often involved authoritarianism, economic inefficiencies, and the suppression of individual liberties, factors you conveniently omit from your idyllic description.
So basically, just like any western country today? With the added bonus of anarcho tyranny and hormone therapy for your depressed teenage she/her son.
>>>475243
Weak reply
>>475245
>Any modern communist movment that exists today that is worth its weight believes in the democratic control of production by a syndicate of unions mutually and democratically running and controlling the work place.
Democratically controlled workplaces (plural) is just syndicalism and still operate under the dynamics of profit and the market place. Elsewise, the entirety of the economy is too complex to democratically decided in an efficient way.
This sort of dopey naivety is why the Prager U guy is running circles around you.
<Inb4 but Cockshott blah blah blah
Can you please talk about the real world instead of nice sounding theories.
>>475257
>What you are calling human nature is but an attempt of reifying what humans are under the yoke of capital, every system tries to do this shit.
The fact that you can't recognize aspects of psychology that are deeply ingrained in people leads me to believe you lack basic social intelligence.

Most of 'human nature' is attributable to the fact that we spend 100,000 years evolving in conditions of scarce resources among small yet socially connected bands of other people, for whom we individually had to rely on for survival. 10,000 years of fuedalism and 350 years of capitalism hasn't changed that, only taken advantage of it.
>We're just living in pre-history, history proper will begin once class society is in the dustbin of history.
I'm sorry. But this is retarded sophomoric phraseology
>>475264
>Your assertion seems to oversimplify the dynamics of ruling classes and technological progress. Ruling classes have demonstrated remarkable adaptability throughout history, and technological advances often lead to new forms of inequality rather than the end of class divisions. The idea that overthrowing individual ruling classes will magically eliminate all class divisions is a utopian oversimplification at best.
True
>some people interpret straightforward information as condescension. Perhaps a dose of rationality and objectivity might help in better understanding
Lol, ya. The person you are debating, who I kindly refer to as Comrade Dunning Krueger, must be smoking something, because zim/zer seems extra inspired to spout idealistic nonsense today.

Where you and I diverge, however, is specifically in the notion that 'new technology breeds new types of inequality.'

While I agree on that point, I'd simply ask, which type of new inequality 'sucks least' while offering the most overall, long-term benefit.

Hence, I'd go with the 'space communism' of militaristic, exploratory technocracy.

>>475265
Hence, we've already arrived at a sort of rentier oligarchal economy which barely deserves the title 'capitalism'

The few capitalist who continue to push forward/manage the development of innovative technologies, such as Elon Musk, are the ones the left curiously singles out to hate. Funny how that works ..
>>>475266
>retarded slogans don't magically solve the the real world.
Lol, according to Comrade Dunning Krueger, they do
>>475277
This uyghur can't make a point without referencing someone else (Zizek, Cockshott, etc). It's a diversion to make his fantasies seem tentable by relying on some other 'authority.'
Fake and ghey
Also kinda ironic since reliance on authority in determining what is true is one aspect of the human nature which zim/zer adamantly insists doesn't exist.
>>

 No.475283

>>475280
He wasn't banned for that. He was banned for 1day for refusing to engage in honest discussion about communism. It's clearly stated in the rules that this is a leftist board and we allow people of other dispositions to post here. If you are just going to keep screaming that: Communism = Only the USSR and there can be no deviation from that narrative you aren't engaged in actual discourse you're just trying to spam the board with you pol tier takes about communism.
>>

 No.475285

>>475283
>Communism= what the USSR says it is
That was basically the line of the Comintern.
I don't think Prager Bru was saying the USSR represented communism as a mode of production, but rather that it was ruled by a communist party who's aim was reaching communism.

More importantly,who decides what is engaging in an honest discussion about communism? It's a slippery slope that leads to ogre tier faggotry.
I could see the logic of he was saying something like 'George Soros and Biden are communists,' but your take seems a bit heavy handed, respectfully.
>>

 No.475286

>>475280
>aspects of psychology that are deeply ingrained in people
I don't disagree, you can find some universal aspects like most people throughout all pre-history absolutely despising the various ruling classes that subjugated them.

>Most of 'human nature' is attributable to the fact that we spend 100,000 years evolving in conditions of scarce resources among small yet socially connected bands of other people, for whom we individually had to rely on for survival.
Most evolution is punctuated equilibrium, the anatomically modern human is about 70,000 years old, we didn't change much since then, maybe a few enzymes to metabolize alcohol and certain foods. Humans were much better at gaining energy from their environment than most other animals that's why we could afford to evolve big brains. So in a way 'human nature' is derived from greater abundance.

>10,000 years of fuedalism and 350 years of capitalism hasn't changed that, only taken advantage of it.
Feudalism is not 10,000 years old, the feudal age began after the fall of the Roman empire, which was a slave society, and before that there were clan societies.
By the way these old class societies weren't based on clever insights about psychology, those were reigns of terror. Many slave-societies had periodic uprisings where all the slave-masters were killed off for example. Many feudal rulers got overthrown and decapitated by peasant revolts. The only reason why these always regressed were because they lacked the necessary development of the means of production. It's very difficult to abolish slavery unless you have steam-engines for example, that's not psychology that's thermodynamics.
>>

 No.475289

>>475285
I've had endless debates about this but at some point some one has to make decisions about what lines we are going to have because right wingers will over run the board if we completely allow unabated conversation. I think I gave more than enough grace and warned him several times and even then knowing he was ban evading still allowed him to respond in kind to which I believe he did a fair enough job to to include serious jannies wrath. Regardless of the line of the cominturn and while yes I agree and acknowledged in the conversation that they were, indeed, communists that was not the only signing the fight during the industrial revolution.This is a common and well known factoid at this point.

At this point I simply refuse to engage with discussion about the USSR with the opposition because they want to try and force their strawman on everyone as the only coherent narrative. We all know how the conversation goes no matter how many times you point out the logical inconsistency with the narrative that "the USSRarino was heck evil" they will always dkuble down so I always try to steer the conversation away towars more libertarian discussion which is the common consensus among most communists tkday i would argue.

And at the end of the day wether they want to accept it or not the economic mode of production we understand as communism simply has not existed in reality.
>>

 No.475290

>>475286
Rome was actually quite multifaceted in its class relations. You had merchants, slaves and proletarian. The word prolotarian is itself Greek I believe. The people who ended up burning Rome to the ground were themselves prolotarian at the end of everything.
>>

 No.475291

>>475289
Avoid serious jannies wrath**
>>

 No.475292

>>475220
I doubt that space-capitalism will be able to achieve much, we'd already have been conquered by a bunch of alien space capitalists otherwise. Scifi-capitalism like the Weyland corp in the Aliens stories is current society (from 1980s and 1990s i guess) but with better technology. Sometimes it's because authors lack the originality to think about how societies change with technology, sometimes they just want to do a social critique of current society in a scifi setting. And it's probably hard to get funding for media production that shows how a non capitalist society would look like. If Star Trek didn't exist already, it would probably be impossible to get lots of funding for something like it today.

>The truth is that the USSR, under the leadership of the Communist Party, implemented a centrally planned economy with state ownership of key industries and resources—a quintessential feature of communism.
Soviet doctrine considered converting private industries into state managed public industries as a stage of socialist construction. Lenin him self said the state would eventually wither away, remember ?
The Soviet system was definitely socialist if you consider it as a project of building towards socialism, but you could be understood as if you tried to imply that the Soviet model could represent a "final form" of socialism. The soviet system could have for example moved towards cyber-socialism, like what Cockshott proposed but I don't think you could consider cyber-socialism to still have a state in the Marxist sense. Another path where the soviet system could have gone in the 90s was a soviet variant of Dengism with Russian characteristics. What I'm getting at here is that there can only be transitional stages leading to something new.
>>

 No.475293

>>475289
>I've had endless debates about this but at some point some one has to make decisions about what lines we are going to have because right wingers will over run the board if we completely allow unabated conversation.

This reads like an admission of the poverty of your own philosophy.
<My ideas can't stand up to scrutiny, but I still want to be able to express them without fear of being criticized and mocked. Therefore, I have to paint anyone who disagrees as /pol/ or a dangerous reactionary before banning them.

Like I said, edging toward .ogre tier faggotry for the sake of preserving your own ego
>>

 No.475294

File: 1696733295291.jpg ( 743.11 KB , 1080x1789 , Screenshot_2023-10-08-09-3….jpg )

Vitalistic Space Communism is based and BAP pilled
>>

 No.475295

>>475289
>Rome was actually quite multifaceted in its class relations.
That was the case for pretty much every system, the Romen empire is classified as slave-society because that was the dominant class antagonism.
>>

 No.475297

>>475295
was meant for
>>475290

darn it
>>

 No.475329

>>475293
So what is your opinion on what we should allow then? Should we allow out right Nazis and ancap shills to populate our leftist bored?

What ideas are you talking about? The idea that leftychan is a leftist image board? That isn't really an idea it's apriori true.
>>

 No.475330

>>475295
That's fair but it is of definitely worth noting that prolotarian relations between proles and the aristocracy of Rome are what caused the fall of the roman empire.
>>

 No.475333

>>475329
Considering that you can't even define the left beyond saying the left doesn't exist anymore, yes.

Really, this place was dead as fuck, and you've none little to nothing to improve it (except perhaps whine and complain about people creating the 'wrong threads')

Maybe left is synonymous with incompetent?

Or is it synonymous with the DNC? Anyone who gives lipservice to equality? Fake and ghey idpol?

Is it anyone who calls themselves left? Anyone who draws any inspiration from Marx?

Considering these questions are left unanswered, yet the entire board is premised on a nebulous and ill defined concept of the left, and you're willing to ad hoc ban people, I'll go with fake and ghey and/or incompetent.
>>

 No.475334

File: 1696750368334.jpg ( 130.2 KB , 1024x1024 , a guntuber.jpg )

>>475294
you are simp bitch, the term "Vitalistic Space Communism" lacks specificity, making it impossible to assess its feasibility or merits. A strong ideological foundation requires clarity, substance, and a practical roadmap for implementation. The fact that proponents of this concept fail to provide any of these elements suggests a profound lack of intellectual rigor.
it's important to note that Curtis Yarvin's ideas, often associated with the "BAP" label, are rooted in authoritarianism and a disdain for democracy. Yarvin's views, including his advocacy for monarchy and rejection of fundamental democratic principles, are not only out of touch with modern political thought but also deeply regressive.

Furthermore, Yarvin's associations with far-right and alt-right circles raise serious ethical concerns. Embracing his ideas and labeling oneself as "BAP pilled" reflects a willingness to align with extremist ideologies that have no place in a just and inclusive society.

In conclusion, the notion of "Vitalistic Space Communism" lacks substance and feasibility, while identifying as "BAP pilled" is a troubling endorsement of regressive and authoritarian ideas. Serious political discourse requires well-defined and defensible positions, which these concepts notably lack. hope you get gangraped
>>

 No.475335

File: 1696750588938.jpg ( 159.01 KB , 1024x1024 , farewell.jpg )

>>475280
I must say, your assertion that every attempt at communism inevitably results in a technocratic oligarchy is a rather simplistic and misguided viewpoint. It reeks of a shallow understanding of both history and political ideologies. The claim that communism inherently leads to technocratic oligarchies is a gross oversimplification that conveniently ignores the nuances of various socialist and communist movements throughout history.
recognize that not all socialist or communist systems have followed the same trajectory. Different countries and movements have implemented their versions of communism with varying degrees of success and failure. To blanketly state that every attempt at communism leads to technocratic oligarchy demonstrates a lack of appreciation for the diversity of approaches and outcomes.
the assertion that the West is already a technocratic oligarchy is a simplistic reduction of complex political systems. Western democracies, while certainly facing their own challenges and imperfections, are fundamentally different from the totalitarian regimes that you seem to equate with communism. The very essence of democracy is the involvement of the people in decision-making, which is a stark contrast to the autocratic tendencies often associated with technocratic oligarchies.
Your assertion that a technocratic oligarchy is inevitable irrespective of cultural and social characteristics lacks nuance and fails to account for the countless variables that shape political systems. Political outcomes are influenced by a multitude of factors, including the legal framework, historical context, the degree of citizen participation, and the balance of power among various institutions.
Labeling those who disagree with your perspective as "lovable derpy autists" is not only disrespectful but also reflects a regrettable inability to engage in a mature and constructive debate. It's crucial to foster respectful discourse when discussing complex political and economic ideologies.
Lastly, comparing "space communism" to a functional military, while making dismissive remarks about the American military, is an oversimplification that ignores the critical distinctions between military institutions and socio-economic systems. The purpose and structure of a military organization are inherently different from those of an economic system, and it's intellectually dishonest to equate the two.

your assertion that communism inexorably leads to technocratic oligarchies lacks depth, ignores historical nuances, oversimplifies complex political systems, and demonstrates a disdainful attitude towards those who hold differing viewpoints. It's essential to engage in thoughtful and respectful discussions when tackling intricate topics like political ideologies.
>>

 No.475338

>>475335
I can't take you seriously.
'America is a democracy because says so and has election!'
<Like I said, shallow breathing thinking
>Why won't you engage with me in a nice way??
Because I think you're a fag and don't care about you. You strike me as a fatty with astigmatism. If I were to see you in the real world, I would do everything in my power to ignore you entirely, based on that alone.
>>

 No.475342

>>475333
Well the term "the left" is really a generality but we pretty much allow anything here outside of our right nazism. Even ancaps can post here but you aren't going to strawman the board and refuse to budge inspite of clear opposition being presented to your opinions so I guess just cope and seethe.

It isn't about what is "the left" but more what we allow on our board which is not nazism and polfsgs who want to reify their own ideology.

But to answer your question: The left being that which is opposed to the current status quo (capitalism) You know, it comes from feudal revolutions that were for or against the king who sat either to the right or left of the crown.

But there is no real "the left" it just boils down to class relations in society. Either you are in and of the working class or you are not and either you support or oppose whatever interests your specific class happens to be. That's really all there is to it.

You still can't actually answer my question though: What line would you draw in the sand?
>>

 No.475344

File: 1696753111515-0.png ( 527.65 KB , 1000x563 , 1696740475782139 It's time….png )

File: 1696753111515-1.png ( 196.81 KB , 660x600 , 1696740563802738 confused.png )

File: 1696753111515-2.png ( 172.39 KB , 386x445 , 1696741844956620 169139117….png )

File: 1696753111515-3.png ( 166.21 KB , 736x981 , 1696742384963461 imagen_20….png )

File: 1696753111515-4.png ( 145.72 KB , 1450x1076 , 1696742793032274 Screensho….png )

>>475342
I must admit, I'm genuinely touched by your commitment to avoiding me in the real world. It's not every day that one encounters such a dedication to the art of ignoring someone. In fact, your determination to ignore me could very well be considered a superpower in the world of social interactions.

Imagine the possibilities! You could win awards for your unparalleled ability to tune someone out, or perhaps start a school to teach others the fine art of ignoring. I can see it now: 'The Institute of Ignoring Excellence,' where students from all walks of life gather to learn the secret techniques of turning a blind eye to the existence of another human being.

But let's not forget, with great power comes great responsibility. You'd have to resist the temptation to sneak a peek my way, for even the slightest acknowledgment could jeopardize your standing as the world's foremost expert in ignoring people. It's a tough job, but I have faith in your commitment to the cause.

So, carry on with your noble quest to ignore me in the real world. I'll be here in the virtual realm, secretly hoping that one day we can meet in person and break the cycle of this extraordinary, albeit somewhat amusing, endeavor."
>>

 No.475355

File: 1696759957109.jpg ( 325.32 KB , 578x818 , workerxpeasant.jpg )

>>475257
>If individual ruling classes are overthrown, that means the cumulative effect will be the end of class divisions as a hole
lol

by what logic does that means that?

for now we've only seen ruling classes overthrowing other ruling classes

main exploited classes of the mode of production literally NEVER overthrew their exploiters kek
>>

 No.475356

>>475355
>main exploited classes of the mode of production literally NEVER overthrew their exploiters
tho I admit they made an effort every time

but they were not subjects of change, they were objects every time

what makes you think that in the future it would be different?
>>

 No.475357

File: 1696762355047.jpg ( 890.82 KB , 1636x1020 , Red Alert 2 anime edition.jpg )

>>475280
>Markets actually help determine an ideal allocation of resources and labor.
except in capitalism they're not because labor is constantly undervalued lol

>The point of OP is that some sort of technocratic oligarchy is inevitable.
Debatable. After all, the Iron law of Oligarchy did get broken in Athens to a large extent. Who says it cannot be broken again on a higher technological basis?

>a technocratic society which aims toward human excellence, much the same way a as military does
military is ghey tho

>Democratically controlled workplaces (plural) is just syndicalism and still operate under the dynamics of profit and the market place. Elsewise, the entirety of the economy is too complex to democratically decided in an efficient way.
The entirety of the economy was too complex to decide anything in an efficient way for the selected vanguard too lol.

If automated planning system can help to reduce the complexity for making democratic decisions, then why not?
>>

 No.475359

File: 1696763544209-0.gif ( 115.82 KB , 1920x1080 , 1696741428226622 blackandw….gif )

File: 1696763544209-1.gif ( 144.33 KB , 500x500 , 1696741473335483 168262607….gif )

File: 1696763544209-2.jpg ( 77.88 KB , 640x881 , 1696742705068164 169492725….jpg )

File: 1696763544209-3.png ( 140.32 KB , 1395x532 , 1696744607495172 oddities1.png )

File: 1696763544209-4.png ( 7.57 KB , 1002x106 , 1696744671513519 oddities ….png )

>>475357
t's true that it can be a real brain teaser for our 'selected vanguard,' who sometimes seem to be playing economic 4D chess while the rest of us are stuck on checkers.

But hey, if an automated planning system can untangle this spaghetti-like mess and make democratic decisions as smooth as butter, why not give it a shot?
>>

 No.475360

File: 1696763916760.jpg ( 173.83 KB , 1280x960 , yokohama.jpg )

>>475359
>But hey, if an automated planning system can untangle this spaghetti-like mess and make democratic decisions as smooth as butter, why not give it a shot?
yes, that's what I've said ms Robot..

I prefer to imagine my robots as sexy anime girls
>>

 No.475361

File: 1696764460977-0.jpg ( 45.6 KB , 474x474 , 1696745416933594 OIP (15).jpg )

File: 1696764460977-1.gif ( 245.91 KB , 500x280 , 1696740282471098 VFTc.gif )

>>475360
Anime is a medium created in Japan, it influenced in the way of thinking and it is a big part of the culture of Japan but what makes it bad, In general this kind of argument should had been made in the beginning years of the medium but along the years the focus on what is anime has shifted it went from a way to demonstrate high art and great story telling with masterpieces like ghost in the shell or cowboy bebop, to what is modern anime, now days the focus has dwindled from showing originals to adapting existing works and mediocre cash grabs, of course there's some stand outs in the modern anime medium but can we honestly say anime is good? No, modern anime is simple, they try to pander to the worst type of community, to those that hardly care about what constitutes as true anime, pandering to people that like seeing fanservice and barely thought out stories and rather call themselves as "man of culture" unironically while hugging their body pillow of whatever anime character is now mainstream, because that's how low the medium has decayed, it is a matter of fact that series come and go yet there's an obvious lack of original stories, perhaps we went wrong with anime, beyond the fact that the phenomenon called "waifuism" has taken the hold of young anime fans, they don't put value on what constitutes an strong character, they have devolved to common tropes and stereotypes, we all have heard the word tsundere, yandere and the like, yet is that truly what constitutes a good character? No, perhaps even the medium was doomed from the start, with works like Evangelion and the tokenism, ignoring the struggles of the characters and labelling them as simple tropes and marketing them as such, anime has stopped being good a long time ago, we can thank the cultural impact it had but we can't deny the damage it has taken in the young children minds from them shouting "baka" to repeating words like chants like "nico nico ni"
>>

 No.475362

File: 1696766805174.jpg ( 90.62 KB , 577x725 , anime wall.jpg )

>>475361
>the phenomenon called "waifuism" has taken the hold of young anime fans
anime was always about waifus and sex

everything else is just an add-on

>No, perhaps even the medium was doomed from the start, with works like Evangelion and the tokenism
Eva is what anime all about lol.

Dumb normoids and their equally dumb robots..
>>

 No.475363

File: 1696768373762-0.gif ( 3.44 MB , 636x324 , 1695553901848096 lreijnahd….gif )

File: 1696768373762-1.gif ( 2.34 MB , 500x500 , 1695781689884063 IMG_7419.gif )

File: 1696768373762-2.gif ( 3.97 MB , 640x360 , 1695830051223013 Chaozu Ba….gif )

File: 1696768373762-3.gif ( 2.56 MB , 300x424 , 1695846882911028 terrydanc….gif )

File: 1696768373762-4.gif ( 319.19 KB , 500x278 , 1696207079955658 169620686….gif )

>>475362
>anime was always about waifus and sex
coomer doomer detected
You will never be Japanese. You have no ancestry, you have no citizenship, you have no skills that would make Japan ever want you.
>>

 No.475364

>>475362
Prisons really are inhuman you know.
>>

 No.475367

>>475363
I don't need to be Japanese to enjoy anime.

>>475364
I still don't understand how could he left his waifu alone like this.. she looks so lonely..
>>

 No.475374

File: 1696784959423.jpg ( 345.69 KB , 1080x1124 , Screenshot_2023-10-08-23-5….jpg )

>>475342
>You still can't actually answer my question though: What line would you draw in the sand?

Considering that 'Nazi' has become a meaningless epithet thrown around by anyone to the left of AOC to describe people they don't like, I'd draw the line thusly:

<People who literally advocate for Nazism (i.e, Hitler was misunderstood blah blah blah) or people who literally promote anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world.

THAT SAID, it does appear as if someone is copypasting AI-geberated responses, which has the effect of seriously degrading the quality of discussion. So I'd ban people who do that unless they make it clear it's an AI-generated text
>>

 No.475539

>>475374
Read the constitution dude that's exactly how we define nazi.

Unique IPs: 20
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome