[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 33 KB, 308x499, 51ZqnqI0bcL._SX306_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13877275 No.13877275 [Reply] [Original]

Criticizing consumerism is now reactionary according to bourgeois leftism.

>> No.13877287

"bourgeois leftism" would have shit on debord in his own time too brainlet

>> No.13877298
File: 12 KB, 480x400, us2012.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13877298

American Liberals have always been considered right wing outside of the US

>> No.13877310

>>13877275
Sweetheart, Debord was a communist.

>> No.13877313

>>13877298
Only inside your "woke" bubble.

>> No.13877317

>>13877310
And yet criticizing Greta Thunberg and pointing out her movement as entirely manufactured will get you labelled as a reactionary. Interesting times we live in, no?

>> No.13877332

Americans are retards.

>>13877298
No. They are classified as liberal, which is neither a right- nor left-wing position.

>> No.13877345

>>13877298
Based and true anon. Anglos literally cannot comprehend this.

>>13877313
>>13877332
Pseuds

>> No.13877351

>>13877345
Why do leftists on /lit/ always assume anyone disagreeing with them is an American?

>> No.13877357

>>13877317
No, you being a moron has nothing to do with Debord and situationism.

>> No.13877362

>>13877298
They were considered pretty left wing when they had their revolution and most of Europe was monarchies.

>> No.13877364

I've noticed how leftists always like to play the no-tru scotsman, WELL AKTUALLY liberal card

You know exactly who we are talking about.

>> No.13877365

>>13877351
They're Europhiles who aren't aware Europe contains multiple countries in which Romney would be lynched for being a commie.

>> No.13877377

>>13877317
>criticizing Greta Thunberg and pointing out her movement as entirely manufactured will get you labelled as a reactionary
Because criticism of her is usually just a thinly veiled attempt to criticize activism against climate change. Not alway, but most of the time it's right-wing concern trolls who talk about how she's being "manipulated" or whatever and veer off into talking about how fears about climate change are overblown and we should totally just keep doing what we're doing.

>> No.13877385

>>13877365
He'd be considered liberal in parts of Germany too, the media has convinced the Anglosphere that Merkel is representative of conservatives in Germany.

>> No.13877389

>>13877364
they are pathologically obsessed with the word leftist. I can't tell if it's some rhetorical ploy or if the word just gives them warm fuzzies like a talisman and they dont like seeing it associated with liberals.

The funniest thing though is that they follow exactly what progressive liberals tell them about social issues. Marx didn't give a shit about things like racism but these 'leftists' trip over themselves to condemn it usually even beyond caring about class. See how much they despise the white working class for example.

>> No.13877403

>>13877351
I don't understand how you could jump to that conclusion based on an anon commenting about americans and replying to a picture.

>> No.13877406

>>13877365
Not even a europhile kek

>> No.13877413

>>13877385
Because the Overton window in Germany is so far left that anyone who doesn't kiss immigrant feet and wear a rainbow pin is considered a fascist.

>> No.13877414

>>13877332
Actually believing american liberals are necessarily liberals through a non-american lense.

>> No.13877417

>>13877385
>Merkel is representative of conservatives in Germany.
How is someone identifying as a part of Christian Democratic Union of Germany not a conservative in your tiny drunken with monster and KFC mind?

>> No.13877429

>>13877417
Christian Conservacucks have abandoned the CDU en masse in recent years mostly due to her moving away from what the party once stood for.

>> No.13877455

>>13877417
You realize the CDU essentially bribe several parties not to run against them and in exchange she lets them pick which members of her parliament get key positions.

>> No.13877466

>>13877455
that's exactly what would make her a conservative

>> No.13877485

>>13877466
She's incredibly vain, everything Merkel does is to ensure a legacy for herself.

>> No.13877492

>>13877317
Just like tankies are reactionary untill they're in power.

>> No.13877504

>>13877485
>everything Merkel does is to ensure a legacy for herself.
but again, that is what essentially conservatism is, I don't understand if you're trying to approve or contradict me

>> No.13877505

>>13877298
Thread elegantly derailed. Well played douche.
>>13877275
Alasdair Macintyre, Bertrand de Jouvenel are some that i know of who started as marxists and eventually gravitated to rightist views. Very interesting thinkers.

>> No.13877515

>>13877504
Now you're just being retarded.

>> No.13877527

>>13877504
That's narcissism. Conservatism in its most simple definition is just conserving the present situation, but usually wants to rewind things a little bit, because they're retards who can't look at history on a larger scale than a couple decades.

>> No.13877536

>>13877504
Are you two trying to setup a scenario where you claim neoliberalism is conservative?

>> No.13877596

>>13877536
I don't have to "setup a scenario", Reagan, Thatcher and all others were conservatives and neoliberals because it is the same thing. I understand that for a mongrel like you Hitler was a socialist, because you wouldn't comprehend a compound sentence, let alone a whole theory so all "thinking" you can do is on a single word but yes, conservatism and neoliberalism usually go together, not against each other, even if etymologically the words seem contradictory.

>> No.13877635

>>13877275
Read Deluze is now a right-wing signal on twitter, so there's that.

>> No.13877666

>>13877504
the conservative case for not being a neet incel

>> No.13877672

>>13877275
well for this specific one it's because consumerism is attacked insofar as it is a specific manifestation of a pacified "cattle culture" for the right or "false consciousness" for the left. The neoliberal establishment opposes critiques of consumerism coming from both directions because these critiques are both aimed instigating revolutionary activity against the system and awakening the proletariat/the Aryan to his high violent potential that is typically obscured by the Spectacle/Jewish Propaganda.
This isn't horseshoe by any means, just pointing out that the ruling class which holds to an ethic of that clumsy and seemingly impossible label "bourgeois leftism" which could just as easily be defined as "gay capitalism" can't stand any critique that has the aim of changing the system. Woke "leftists" on twitter see consumerism as good insofar as it decreases the violent potential of the disorganized masses because of their pathological aversion to expressions of force and/or machismo though

>> No.13877702

>>13877275
Adorno's writings on jazz, which actually make some good points.

>> No.13877754

>>13877702
Also Adorno has a book against astrology. Would definately not sit well with modern lib-left girls who are such geminis

>> No.13877762

>>13877754
can you go and be annoying somewhere else? i'm reading this thread while eating.

>> No.13877772

>>13877762
Stop crying faggot

>> No.13877783

Anti-abortion, probably the best critique of feminism ever, discussion of rape fantasies, mentioning that most rapists are foreigners, how rape protest is really just a marketing tactic for feminism.
Could it get any better?
>The predatory male, and in the extreme the rapist, is a nuisance or a danger. But embarrassment or injury are above all rooted in all the misery and solitude of the victims. They are provocations, injurious responses painfully felt because they cannot fulfill, a caricature of the hope of something else. If the rapist were Tarzan, perhaps he would be forgiven. But the kerb crawler rarely has the appearance or the manners of a Prince Charming. His “prey” sees her own misery reflected in his.

>Rape as an act, but more frequently as fantasy, is the product of the form of relations between the sexes and the contradictions therein. It is the politicisation of an old, more or less obsessional female fear, a fear which covers a desire for sexuality which cannot acknowledge or assert itself.

>Rape fantasies and dreams about housebreaking express sexual fear clothed in the fear of aggression. But this isn’t only fear, just as it is not only passivity; fantasy is also an action. Desire takes form by discharging responsibility and blame on to the aggressor. In his way the latter embodies desire itself. He is desire, but coming in from the outside. Just as the active male fantasy, and even rape itself, are products of impotence, the passive fantasy in woman is also an expression of her need for action; she acts out her desire and so deals with the reality which refuses her this right.

>In the active fantasy, the desire for and refusal of the other find an outlet in domination and aggression. It is as much a question of self-defence as it is of attack, self-protection from the risk and anguish of refusal by the other with an attitude which makes neither acceptation or refusal possible. Desires, fantasies and various forms of sado-masochistic behaviour are not the product of a primary attitude which has been superficially glossed over by civilisation, and is tending to re — emerge. The image of the pre-historic woman as a prey pulled along by the hair and who, one suspects, enjoys it. No, they are the product of man’s liberation from his real needs, which then come back to haunt him in a distorted form. Abandon, the submission which a loving relationship implies, unaccepted because it is in contradiction with a whole way of life, returns in the form of an exterior domination that is violent, imposed, feared and desired at the same time.

>> No.13877867

>>13877635
How tf is Deleuze right wing

>> No.13877902

>>13877867
Some of the NuRight are reading them because they have no clue how to be right-wing now and there were no good right-wing authors for the last half of the 20th century.

>> No.13878059

>>13877867
Deleuze (like Foucault, I suppose) was incredibly cynical and even hostile toward mass-media and the way in which broadcast images and slogans created their own type of consciousness. In other words, they were basically Trump ranting about "fake news" a half-century before Trump used the phrase.

>> No.13878083

>>13877783
>>13877754
>>13878059
Is this one person posting or is this thread some kind of moron magnet?

>> No.13878101

>>13878083
try to say literally anything intelligent

>> No.13878113

>>13878101
I'm happy you're offended.

>> No.13878119

>>13878113
fantastic. Now say something intelligent about Debord or any of the other people in this thread. I know you can do it

>> No.13878139

>>13877275
Corsair Writings by Pier Paolo Pasolini

>> No.13878203

>>13878119
What does that question even try to accomplish? You haven't yet said anything at all about Debord, just made an outrageously ignorant claim.

Whatever I write won't make up for you never reading him. Again, Debord was openly a communist. Society of Spectacle is a marxist book. You don't understand what right wing means. You probably don't get what marxism is. And Trump is essentially a spectacle and exist solely because of mass media, solely as an image without any real property. I hope that made you even more angry, now fuck off.

>> No.13878217

>>13878083
I posted the poverty of feminism one. What's wrong with it?

>> No.13878219

>>13877275
Which translation of SotS is the best?

>> No.13878250
File: 196 KB, 1920x1080, [Meguca]_Puella_Magi_Madoka_Magica_Part_III_-_Rebellion_[BD][h264-1080p_FLAC][45D40AAC].mkv_snapshot_00.57.08_[2019.09.20_20.47.31].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13878250

Do right-wingers really have so few worthwhile thinkers that they need to steal left-wing ones?
Can't you people talk about Burke or something? What's next, Bordiga was a crypto-fascist?

>> No.13878254

>>13878203
lol, well you tried

>> No.13878268

Why do leftypolfags get so mad when rightwingers aknowledge leftist authors?

>> No.13878524
File: 13 KB, 657x527, Apu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13878524

>tfw got labeled a class reductionist and islamophobe by local Trotskyist and anarchist groups in my very woke European city
>tfw Arab atheist
>started reading Sorel, Mussolini and Gentile
Maybe non-anarchist syndicalism isnt that bad. Is this how it starts, lads.

>> No.13878546

>>13878524
>>tfw got labeled a class reductionist and islamophobe by local Trotskyist and anarchist groups in my very woke European city
Does this actually really happen?

also just lmao at leftists using the phrase 'class reductionist'. Is that not...the entire program

>> No.13878560

>>13878546
Trots and anarchists are perhaps the most insane people on the far left. No idea why, but they tend to be. It's ironic because many Trotskyists turn into neocons later in their life, while many anarchists are secretly very authoritarian.

>> No.13878573

>>13877275
>bourgeois leftism
The key term here is bourgeois.
The bourgeoisie is Liberal, in US terms that is scarily leftist, because you are corporatist fascists, everywhere else it's grandads Conservative common sense,

>> No.13878596
File: 20 KB, 400x400, DrBF2eaWoAA1Lcc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13878596

>>13878573
>because you are corporatist fascists,

>> No.13878637

>>13878560
>many Trotskyists turn into neocons later in their life

Is this a backhanded way of calling them Jewish?

>>13877867
It's not so much that he is "right-wing," but that some people on the far right find his ideas useful in terms of attacking the current ruling order, which they see as a leftist/neoliberal behemoth. Ie, in very broad terms, something like mass-immigration can be seen as the neoliberal system's attempt to reach its virtuality/apotheosis, which would be something like "maximal GDP growth," and it will mechanistically destroy everything in opposition to this goal. Anti-Oedipus and 'schizoanalysis' seem to be favorites here.

>> No.13878655

>>13877275
americans are retards and are liberal to fascist. seriously. leave america and actually learn what things mean. better yet, stay in your shithole and nuke yourselves somehow.

>> No.13878671

>>13878637
>Is this a backhanded way of calling them Jewish?
No, many actually do turn into neo-cons

>> No.13878677

>>13877275
there is no left or right you stupid fucking cunt theres only non-dumbfucks and people who require execution

>> No.13878681

>>13878671
Yes, but most of the canonical examples (Irving Kristol, etc.) seem to have that in common.

>> No.13878693

>>13877298
This. No Brazilian left winger considers any American individual an actual representative of left thought. Maybe Chomsky and that's it. Calling "democrats" leftists is a joke.

>> No.13878711

>>13878693
yeah because everyone aspires to be like Brazil

>> No.13878750

>>13878711
It's not about that, it's a simple fact. American "leftists" are doing it mostly for lifestyle points.

>> No.13878751

>>13878693
>Brazilian leftwingers
Maybe get that shithole of a country together before you start criticizing people

>> No.13878779

>>13877275
In the US there is nothing more blasphemous to right wingers than criticizing markets and consumerism. They even deny the role human activity plays in climate change because they're worried about how environmentally conscious policies will affect their short term profits. It's still the leftists primarily criticizing consumerism. Bourgeois leftism is a misnomer... you're talking about liberalism.

>> No.13878789

>>13878779
being openly racist is way more blasphemous in the US than criticizing markets.

>> No.13878791

>>13877317
Why, then, is the most popular and most corporatist news source in America completely against Greta? The Fox News pundits, sponsored of course by big oil, have been making fun of her for as long as she's been in the public eye.

>> No.13878798

>>13878789
I said to right wingers. They're not as touchy about racism.

>> No.13878811

>>13878791
Fox news is not a very big share of the total American media

>> No.13878822

>>13878789
only in the social context but you have no fucking friends LMAO

>> No.13878840
File: 1.40 MB, 912x1216, sneed protect.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13878840

>>13877317
>the amount of angry replies to this post
Bourgeois faux-leftists btfo

>> No.13878847

>>13878840
I counted one angry reply to it...

>> No.13878848

>>13877275
>Criticizing consumerism is now reactionary according to bourgeois leftism.
I think it is really bizarre how things changed alignment so fast.

Right now, the left is the representative of corporate power. And they look down on working class people. The other day I saw a discussion where a left-winger was defending that enormously rich tech corporations should decide which opinions are acceptable and which are not. One of his arguments was "a private enterprise should do whatever it wants".

Liberals usually say that the "liberal positions of today are the conservative positions of tomorrow" but the opposite is happening too.

>> No.13878856

>>13877317
no you don't understand reactionary is just a colloquialism for saying you are a stupid dog cunt.
>entirely manufactured
by who?

>> No.13878864

>>13878856
>reactionary is just a colloquialism for saying you are a stupid dog cunt.
like rednecks calling obama a communist as an insult. That's the level of discourse you're operating on lol

>> No.13878874

>>13877275
This book is not remotely right-wing.

>> No.13878877

>>13878848
I don't understand how you hold this opinion. Try watching some Fox News. They tell the average right wing American what to think, and with a great deal of success. They're the ones against the minimum wage, they deny the validity of climate science because eco-friendly policies would hurt corporate profits, they defend the military industrial complex, big pharma, the prison industrial complex... need I go on? That's all stuff the left opposes. On top of that the left wants to break up big tech companies now. So what exactly are you talking about?

>> No.13878879

>>13878250
OP's point is not that. He is saying that the left became pro-capitalistic and the right less so, meaning some old leftists could look like rightists nowadays.

>> No.13878885

>>13878864
no rednecks call obama a communist because they are stupid fucking retards. a more accurate analogy would be like if i called you smart.

>> No.13878886

>>13878877
Are you a time traveler from 2005 or something? The new left is a cheerleader for whatever corporations does. Heck, disliking the latest Star Wars film makes you a reactionary nowadays,

>> No.13878894
File: 3.65 MB, 286x258, blessed.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13878894

>>13877275
https://medium.com/@buffsoldier_96/a-marxist-defence-of-consumerism-c307f9186921
>Contrary to what anti-consumerist leftists may argue capitalism and consumption aren’t easy bedfellows, and shouldn’t be conflated with each other or made to be synonymous. After all, capitalism, certainly in its ‘classical’ phase, has long been associated with misers, who defer gratification in the pursuit of endless accumulation, and an emphasis on work, saving and thrift.

>> No.13878899

>>13878885
>stupid fucking retards
Well your verbal IQ at least matches your political orientation when placed on the bell curve

>> No.13878902

>>13878886
I'm out the blue, what is about the new star wars that is controversial?

>> No.13878912

it's almost as if there were never american leftists aside from people like coal miners literally shooting cops and the military and that america's definition of leftism is completely and totally wrong...

>> No.13878922

>>13878886
>The new left is a cheerleader for whatever corporations does
Nice evidence fuckface.

>> No.13878924

>>13878912
what do you think the CPUSA was
>it's almost as if
This is a bannable offense

>> No.13878945

>>13878886

You obviously consume too much media. I can tell by your indirect allusion to the social responsibility trend of modern corporate entities, which are almost wholly PR operations of dubious authenticity. Of course it seems like they dovetail nicely with SJW shit, because that’s how co-option and recuperation in capitalism work. Appearances can be deceiving.

Go for a walk in the woods, bro.

>> No.13878946

>>13878899
you think that's an indication of poor verbal skills because you're a boring retard fuckface who nobody gives a fuck about irl.
nice argument btw

>> No.13878949

>>13878946
please continue making the left look bad

>> No.13878964

>>13877377
your whole speak is very problematic

>> No.13878976

>>13878779
>It's still the leftists primarily criticizing consumerism

Not in actual practice. There is nothing more corporatist than mass-immigration/open-borders, after all.

>> No.13878978

>>13878524
>Trotskyist and anarchist

I sympathize with something akin to ontological anarchism. In my experience, most 'radical left' groups are spoiled middle class kids trying to establish a sense of agency. They are not Anarchist or Trotsky, they are simply intolerable, because they have no stakes. They don't need a job, and they don't come from underprivileged backgrounds. As soon as they actually have to get a job, they will become normal, apathetic consumers. And I am probabilistically sure the kind of US witchhunt Liberalism is the same thing
This has always been a thing with the left eating itself. It is Communist or it fails, because people who are cooperative are typically very bad at simply calling out bullshit, and especially facing violence, so they inevitably get co-opted unless they are intensely individualistic

And fuck /pol/ and all your apologist bullshit. You can be better than you are trying to be

>> No.13878986

>>13877377
It's more like fearmongering climate change is the improper way to go about changing things.

Al Gore fearmongered about ice caps melting and us being underwater years ago. People forgot about that, however. Now a new mouthpiece is trotting out the same tactic and, trust me, it won't go anywhere. People will protest for optics and have a good laugh with friends, but it won't result in anything -- as usual.

>> No.13878993
File: 92 KB, 765x960, 1569174274297.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13878993

>>13878922
ahahhahaha look how mad he got. What a fucking loser. Lets make it simple, "free" healthcare. Whats free about it?

Its not like big pharma is going to be making things cheaper, its just that now there is endless demand for things that theoretically can cost a lot more. People wont care? because "MUH FREE".

Im not that other anon, but its just another example of how fucking delusional and stupid you people are, on the left.

Either way, all americans tend to be retarded today. Sanity is a thing of the past. Good luck printing money till your country is back in the stoneage, protip, voting dem, repub or even Trump wont change that fact.

Your country is going down the drain and you are worried about gender politics. Something that makes me think that you are incredible naive by the way, is the fact that you think you will ever be able to tax the rich and get "justice".

How fucking DELUSIONAL are you leftists? Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. Fuck man, you guys are so fucked.

BYE AMERICA, BYE BYE!

>> No.13879012

>>13878993
are you and adult?

>> No.13879015

>>13879012
do you post from your phone?

>> No.13879020

>>13878986
no listen you autistic faggot, climate change is an urgent problem that require urgent solutions. fearmongering is when people stir fear up over nothing. unless you've stuck your head up your prolapsed asshole you would know this.

>> No.13879021

>>13879015
do you post from your ass?

>> No.13879022

>>13879021
so yes to the phone?

>> No.13879023

Guy Debord? No.

Baudrillad? Yes.

https://youtu.be/JsB-k8jLvWY

>> No.13879027

>>13878993
Nice argument fuckface

>> No.13879028

>>13879020
>climate change is an urgent problem
lol

>> No.13879030

>>13877377
Most leftists don't actually believe in "climate change," though. Certainly not in a coherent manner. For example: there is an anti-natalist movement related to climate change. This is based on a fairly simple premise - more people in developed, high-carbon-emission western nations = more carbon emissions.

This premise has quite a few implications beyond anti-natalism. It would imply support for something approaching closed-borders, in order to control population growth. And yet, that simple consistency is extremely rare among "climate change activists." Which means they aren't even serious about their own claims. You'd have to turn to the "eco-fash" people for that.

>> No.13879039

>>13878894
Not bad, would be actually quite on point back in 2008 with everyone proposing austerity. However it´s clear there are some unforseen contradiction there due to 19th century limitations. For example he doesn´t take in account competition between different advertisers that drives marketing techniques to consume more and more public space and severly damage human cognitive capabilities. And when Karl says that worker can only choose between stuffing his pillow with money or using that money for useless shit, it´s clear he didn´t get to see 20th century and consumer loans which both satisfy the consumption and enslave the worker.

>> No.13879046

>>13878978
>You can be better than you are trying to be
Fuck that. "Be better" is moral policing bullshit by a bunch of wokescolds who cant mount any decent reason for why people should actually follow their political ideas, even when it brings them nothing but ruin. Ive come to realize that anarchism and probably communism simply arent feasible, as tribalism is just far too strong. Besides that, ive recently started to listen to inner doubts that i had about the telos of much on the far left, that under socialism everyone would be free to do 'leasure', which i find a hopelessly soulless and empty existence. I would rather have an eternal but meaningful struggle.

>> No.13879053

>>13878993
In civilized countries we have free healthcare, we pay much less for it than the mutts and on top of it we are not suffering from redditpaneling.

>> No.13879057

Kill all capitalists and then go from there. Maybe kill the cucks that support them too. Have to start somewhere instead of with empty words and more windmills, right?

>> No.13879078

>>13879028
when will you realize you are a stupid piece of shit who didn't go to uni and your only choice now is to try and sound like you know what you're saying...

>> No.13879093

>>13879078
when will you provide a predictive model of the climate
never lel

>> No.13879105

>>13879057
add to that list people who speak in memes irl

>> No.13879113

>>13879093
there's plenty of data out there try google i'm not going to spoonfeed info to some retard fuckface who has no future in their life...

>> No.13879118

>>13879113
I have plenty of data that you suck cocks, just try google im not going to spoonfeed you

>> No.13879132

>>13879030
>Most leftists don't actually believe in "climate change,"
bullshit. feel free to provide evidence.
>there is an anti-natalist movement related to climate change
>It would imply support for something approaching closed-borders, in order to control population growth.
there's zero correlation here.

were you educated on 4chan or are you just pretending to sound clinically retarded?

>> No.13879141

>>13879118
don't tell me about your life bro you can watch all the gay porn you want, just try using google to find out more about climate change...

>> No.13879149
File: 32 KB, 850x400, Edward Abbey quote.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13879149

>>13879132
Here's a famous quote from an oldschool leftist related to the topic. How many leftists today abide by the same principles?

>> No.13879151

>>13879141
DId you know that the sun revolves around the earth? Seriously bro just try google, the info's all there

>> No.13879157

>>13879149
do you even know who this person is?

>> No.13879173

>>13879157
its edward abbey

>> No.13879182

>>13879149
you're using a quote that can be applied to almost any context as your argument/evidence?
shit i guess you're not pretending

>> No.13879197

>>13879151
did you know that if you stopped putting so many cocks in your mouth you might find the time to google about climate change?

>> No.13879198

>>13879182
I already explained the basic math of the situation. Carbon output has a very close relationship to population size. If you don't support sharply limited immigration into high-emissions nations, then you're not actually serious about "climate change" as an urgent crisis. If you support lax borders in conjunction with "climate change activism," it implies that you don't actually believe that increased emissions are THAT MUCH of a problem.

>> No.13879201

>>13877275
Guenon btfoed consumerism before it even became a thing.

>> No.13879208

>its edward abbey
>name is right there
AHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAA this is what we're up against

>> No.13879211

>>13879197
i might end up on climate audit though

>> No.13879238

>>13877275
Deleuze
Baudrillard
Foucault
Derrida
Marx
Mao
These are some of the traditionally "leftist" thinkers currently being appropriated by the "power theorist" reactionary right. Lefties seem to be pretty mad about the whole affair.

>> No.13879243

>>13879198
that's not math, feel free to provide the math.

the way you link immigration/birth rate/borders etc with climate change is very interesting. did you know that seeing the link between evidently unrelated things is a primary symptom of schizophrenia?
have you ever seen a mental health professional?

>> No.13879248

>>13879243
>u disagree with me so ur insane
based leftist retard

>> No.13879251

>>13879198
1. Outlaw the meat industry
2. Switch to green energy
Abracadabra faggot, climate change is solved. Nothing to do with immigrants or anything else. That’s not to say overpopulation isn’t a problem; we should probably be sterilising low IQ people

>> No.13879257

>>13879251
ahahah i can literally picture you

>> No.13879264

>>13879251
>we should probably be sterilising low IQ people
this really redeemed the rest of your post, but im still going to eat a bunch of meat tonight

>> No.13879272

>>13879238
Yes, and the "power theorist" you mention consider Mussolini and Franco the only true progressive democrats. Lefties seem kinda upset about it. This thread is cancer, why do you people even decide to litter the earth with your impotent existence?

>> No.13879276

>>13879238
Baudrillard always was far from other leftist writers.

>> No.13879286

>>13877275
Foucault's concept of "biopower" is making a comeback on the right. His skepticism/paranoia of large institutions of social control like the medical-industrial complex. It's interesting to watch.

>> No.13879300

>>13878902
Any criticism of the new Star Wars is considered "reactionary", since the cast is "diverse". As it turns out, the movie is a pretty bad one. Of course it is not because of the cast (they are completely innocent on the movie being awful, just like the poor lads who played Anakin were not at fault for the problems in the prequels), but because it is badly written.

>> No.13879302

>>13879264
Same. I still eat meat and drive a gas guzzler because ik my singular contribution won’t make a statistically significant change. It needs to be a top-down process

>> No.13879310

>>13879243
>that's not math, feel free to provide the math.

Not sure, if this is bait, but:

Carbon output = the aggregate of things which produce carbon. Population size is part of that aggregate, in that population size going up = increased aggregate = increased carbon output. Mass-immigration increases population size which in turn increases carbon output. That's the math.

>>13879251
Kind of a non sequitur, since the supposed goal is to reduce carbon output. That would mean going after every available target, and closed borders is a big and obvious available target that could be enacted quickly, thus making it one of the easier measures to take.

If "climate change activists" are explicitly avoiding one of the quickest and easiest paths to carbon output control/reduction, then why should anyone else take them seriously?

>> No.13879315

>>13879302
do you actually listen to yourself holy shit sounds like im on the train and have to overhear some freshmen talk

>> No.13879319

>>13879248
not really.
you've provided zero evidence to support what you said, like i said feel free to man. but yea what you said would sound insane even to your own peers who aren't suffering from some serious mental decline. i genuinely suggest talking to a professional.

>> No.13879331

>>13879310
you realize you typing words out is not evidence or math right? do you have any established peer-reviewed studies that support what you're saying?
anyway this doesn't even matter, i suggest getting help.

>> No.13879334

>>13879315
Cool. Everything I said is correct.

>> No.13879335

>>13877275
It's because the techno-capitalists are the wealthy elite now. What politics considers left or right wing in culture depends on where the wealth has allocated to.

>> No.13879365

>>13879310
Closing the borders is another non solution like paper straws or “saving energy”. If you are seriously trying to combat climate change you go against the meat industry and the fossil fuel industry, simple as that.

>> No.13879368

>>13878945
Right now, the right and the left are changing to be very different to the way they were years ago.

The right is becoming more of the Patrick Deneen type. Less consumerist, less appreciative of capitalism, less inclined to support foreign adventures and more in line of "bringing back communities and the old values that were abandoned in the 20th century". The new thing will be for the right to care less about smaller taxes and regulations and more about "having healthy families and communities". The Milton Friedman right is about to disappear.

The left is becoming more of the woke type. More appreciative of corporations, if they defend woke causes. Identity politics is king. In social issues the aim being to fight any culture that is against the personal choices that people make. Meaning that there would be no right or wrong on personal choices.

>> No.13879371

>>13879276
how?

>> No.13879387

>>13879368
damn....

>> No.13879401

>>13879331
So more first worlders means that carbon output would remain the same? You not really providing anything to the contrary either

>> No.13879403

>>13879368
>The new thing will be for the right to care less about smaller taxes and regulations and more about "having healthy families and communities".
This is what Tucker Carlson is doing. I remember a fair amount of leftwing publications handwrining over how he was dangerous because he was co-opting socialist talking points about the poor and community, but framing it as essentially a problem of family formation.

>> No.13879416

>>13879105
I will allow this.

>> No.13879425

>>13877275
All the "deep ecology" people like Jacques Ellul and Linkola. They used to have strong contingents of hard-left readers and supporters; that seems to be dropping away as leftism de-emphasises any sort of localism/regionalism in favour of globalist outlooks.

>> No.13879439

Is schizo the new left buzzword now? Is gaslighting all lefties know how to do anymore?

>> No.13879448

>>13879243
But he's right, lowering the population of high consuming countries is quickest achieved by increasing restriction on immigration. Do you really not comprehend that or are you just being dishonest?

>> No.13879450

>>13879238
Damn, right wingers were the real postmodern cultural marxists all along.

>> No.13879451

>>13879368
i really fucking hate americans

>> No.13879462

>>13879272
No they don't. What are you talking about?

>> No.13879465

>>13879451
that's my conclusion after reading this thread as well.

>> No.13879469

>>13879368
Hardly. Right wing is all about master morality. Capitalism is master morality. Right wing will be defendant of capitalism till it´s end.

At best we´ll see overall shift of the center towards the left.

>> No.13879479

>>13879387
I think this right-wing is better than the one from the past.

>>13879403
It is the way forward.

>>13879451
Why?

>> No.13879482

>>13879451
You hate people disagreeing with you*

>> No.13879487

>>13879465
man there should be country flags on every board. so we can easily ignore the posts of these subhumans.

>> No.13879497

>>13879462
What are you talking about? To anyone who has read any of what's mentioned in the thread beginning with Debord it just feels like being drunk in a psychiatric ward. Who are the right wingers appropriating Marx? What would that even mean?

>> No.13879502

>>13879368
>The right is becoming more of the Patrick Deneen type. Less consumerist, less appreciative of capitalism
OHNONONONO

>> No.13879516

>>13879497
>Who are the right wingers appropriating Marx?

Well that's not even a new thing. Ezra Pound cited Marx in his condemnation of "Usura," didn't he?

>> No.13879518

>>13879368
I've always thought it weird how the left have absolutely no clue what's going on in the right-wing political-sphere. The right-wing have some really interesting bedfellows theses days, a form of Conservative feminism is exploding in popularity.

>> No.13879532

>>13879516
>cited
Lenin mentions the Bible somewhere, that doesn't mean he "appropriates" it.

>> No.13879543

>>13879497
>Who are the right wingers appropriating Marx?
Bannon.

>> No.13879550

>>13879543
Source on that? I'm not an American, I don't care about your retarded politics that much.

>> No.13879566
File: 167 KB, 500x509, 4328b6863bd863668af3a3cd9159014c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13879566

Oswald Mosley.

>> No.13879570

How many leftists would actually die for their ideals? The right atm seems way more likely to do this desu

>> No.13879574

>>13879550
nobody cares what you think

>> No.13879578

ADOLF HITLER THE MOST FUCKING MARXIST COMMUNIST CULTURAL IDENTITY POLITICS LIBERAL TRANSGENDER ANTIFA SOCIALIST

>> No.13879581

>>13879570
I guess that antifa mass-shooter in Dayton did, though he was kind of a weird-looking retard who was probably psychotic rather than a pure leftist idealist.

>> No.13879584

>>13879570
Aside from the odd extremely deranged individual (the kind that becomes a suicide bomber or a manifesto-writing shooter), as a whole the right isn't at all more likely to "die for their ideals" whatever that means.
It's all a bunch of bullshit smokescreens, there is no movement polarizing enough in the first world that would lead people to die for or against it.

>> No.13879597

>>13879570
Neither are doing shit at the moment, if the American left believes ICE is literally Hitler why the fuck aren't they doing anything, the right don't seem to actually want to accomplish anything other than accelerating the societal downward trend.

>> No.13879608
File: 78 KB, 674x1024, 1569144997038.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13879608

>>13879570
It's more commendable and committal to live for ones ideals, especially considering how meaningless and often miserable modern life is. I don't think the average nobody on the street would really feel like he's losing much by dying, and when someone chooses to "die for the cause" of the right by shooting a bunch of the wrong people, it's always self-defeating.

>> No.13879610

>>13879597
There was one antifa dude that threw molotovs or something at a detention facility. But yeah just another crazy really

>> No.13879627

>>13879570
>Seem
Check the casulties for Russian civil war, Great Patriotic war, American-Vietnamese war, Korean-American war etc. Left has much better historical record when it comes to the strenght of will.

>> No.13879631

>>13879497
I've already told you, the neo/reactionary power theorist guys. They use Marx in the same way anyone else uses Marx, just for different ends.

>> No.13879638

>>13879627
North Koreans and Vietnamese were essentially ethno-nationalists in those wars, and ethno-nationalism is a right-wing ideology, not a leftist one. Leftism rejects such exclusivist racialised hierarchies.

>> No.13879644

>>13879638
Are you a mutt or something? National-liberation movements get marked as leftist fairly often. Unquestionably so when they fly hammer and sickle.

>> No.13879655

>>13879638
They were fucking communist you despicable mongrel.

>> No.13879660

>>13879627
That's a whole different era of lefties but I get your point.

>> No.13879662

>>13879608
>Your pic
Wtf is this?

>> No.13879666

>>13879638
lmaooo top-tier mutt bait

>> No.13879734

>>13879662
Exactly what it looks like? o_O

>> No.13879981
File: 238 KB, 428x850, 1562050130819.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13879981

Politics threads sure are cancer. All the ignorant narcissists really come out of the woodwork to post in them.

>> No.13880149

>>13877417
>How is someone identifying as a part of Christian Democratic Union of Germany not a conservative
That means NSDAP really was a socialist workser's party. The name says it all.
Nothing about post-Adenauer "Christian" (((Democracy))) is even remotely connected to the teaching of Jesus Christ. They are just slightly more capitalistic progressives.

Also how the hell a person that actively works to dissolve her own nation's identity and cultural continuum while administering the most radical societal changes in the history of German state can be considered conservative?

>> No.13880184
File: 22 KB, 333x499, 41hklDYOWoL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13880184

>>13877275
only bc right wing lolbertarians follow the letter of 200+ year old liberalism and ignore the intent, which is the important part.

>> No.13880190

>>13877298
American liberals are centrists
American conservatives are so far right it's ridiculous

>> No.13880248

>>13880190
saudi arabia is far right. american republicans are not

>> No.13880249

>>13878879
the right is still far more pro-capitalist than the left

>> No.13880292

>>13880190
>American conservatives are so far right it's ridiculous
Shows that you've never seen a right-winger in your life, faggot.

>> No.13880299

>>13878524
Yes, vertical syndicalism is really the only answer. The truly revolutionary left-wing of the early 20th century turned to fascism once they came to realize that internationalism means decadence, stagnation, and the whoring out of the national working class.

>> No.13880403

>>13880248
I wouldn't describe monarchists who support Islamic Jihad as far right, more crazy

>> No.13880408

>>13877275
The "wing" terms themselves are already a polluted discourse. You put Liberalism as the center and lend it legitimacy and a false sense of nature. None of that is true.

>> No.13880421

>>13878524
ditch the gentile and read CH Douglas and Danuzios constitution of fiume much better representation of guild socialism/non-anarchist syndicalism... remember the word "corparatione" translates to guild in italian

>> No.13880423

>>13878524
>>13880421
not saying that because fascism is bad, just saying gentile is a shit writer and was a traitor to mussolini, made unproven ghostwriting claims and what not, keep reading mussolini its good for the soul brother

>> No.13880437

>>13880408
Liberalism invites critique but what you really mean is are the people critiquing it or adopting its critical texts no longer a non-threatening academic class of integrated personalities and professionals? Foucault was the best thing to happen to Liberalism since FDR, but his books being read increasingly by illiberal dissidents changes how Liberalism feels about Foucault.

>> No.13880532

>>13877275
If you recognize that Leftism was always just a plot to give Jews more power, it answers all questions.

>> No.13880537
File: 331 KB, 1706x1706, 1567222643933.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13880537

>>13877754
Kek, that's pretty based. Fuck Gemini girls, they're all shit-tier and make incels look ideologically correct. What's the title of Adorno's book against astrology?

>> No.13880542

>>13879132
No, there's a very strong correlation there. You cannot simultaneously hold that overpopulation is a serous problem AND that we need unlimited brown people so that Democrats can win elections.

The Sierra Club was forced to change its line by its donors in the 90s for just this reason. Mass immigration and environmentalism are mutually exclusive positions.

Since the only ACTION we have actually seen has been for leftists to permit, and if necessary actively break the law to facilitate mass immigration, the obvious conclusion is that no, they don't actually believe in climate change, or if they do, they see it as less important than sniveling about diversity on facebook.

>> No.13880611
File: 57 KB, 758x768, 1567050513578.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13880611

>>13879132
>there's zero correlation here.
>>13879243>
>that's not math
>did you know that seeing the link between evidently unrelated things is a primary symptom of schizophrenia?
Because moving people from a less developed country where they are too poor to drive a car to one where there is an abundance of automobiles won't result in more carbon emissions. I can't believe you have the nerve to imply the other person might be clinically retarded or schizophrenic when you can't understand a concept as simple as MORE DRIVERS = MORE POLLUTION. You are without a doubt the most idiotic poster I have ever encountered on 4chan. It is unfathomable to me that someone who is incapable of understanding this basic mathematical principal could use a computer, or eat or breathe without assistance. Whatever trained chimp your parents bought to use the keyboard for you is surely miserable beyond comprehension and should be put out of its misery, as should you and your parents.

>> No.13880667

Marx was pretty far right for today's standards

>> No.13880676

>>13880667
awful bait

>> No.13880685

Hitler was pretty much a cultural marxist if you think about it.

>> No.13880730

right-wing ideology is mental illness. there's a reason why all intellectuals are left wing. Just keep watching those PragerU vids guys and wait for that trickle-down. its bound to happen any day now! maybe give another tax break to the billionaires just to be sure.

>> No.13880775

>>13880685
0/10

>> No.13880807
File: 500 KB, 1224x737, 1561683086567.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13880807

>>13880730
What a stupid cope. The idea that intellectuals are left-wing is complete and total bullshit. Social scientists (not a real science in practice) and literature majors, these are the types who are leftists, and as such it makes sense that their political views are based on conjecture and feelings as opposed to tangible evidence and data. Evolutionary psychologists and population geneticists, for example, acknowledge the difference between sexes and races respectively, which is very opposed to the leftist beliefs of the aforementioned groups. Only one supergroup has beliefs based on observable biological mechanisms, can you guess who it is? Can you guess which one projects meaning onto external items? While your "intellectuals" shout that is a systemic bias against minorities because of the result, the "mentally ill" adjust racial earnings to control for IQ discrepancies between races to find the cause when the gap disappears before their very eyes. Leftist economics is also a joke.

>> No.13880820
File: 363 KB, 981x1798, 1538283319715.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13880820

>>13880730
>there's a reason why all intellectuals are left wing
Can't tell if trolling desu.

>> No.13880854

>>13877377
As a communist, I would personally murder Greta and her parents if I were given the opportunity. Get fucked

>> No.13880862

>>13880854
Why?

>> No.13880904
File: 526 KB, 731x561, tired skinner.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13880904

>>13880862
There's something sickening about the way progressive media is rallying behind her. I don't think I'd care about her otherwise. Her talking points are terrible and typical of gay young environmentalists but I don't care about that part. To me she represents capitalism co-opting what ought to be a good movement and turning it to its benefit.

Or something something I'm a jealous leftymong rah rah rah, fuck off I don't care, it's been a long day.

>> No.13880928

>>13880904
Oh, I don't watch progressive media, so I don't actually know what's up with her. I just know she's an aspie girl from Sweden who's become some kind of "climate activism" figurehead.

>> No.13881089

>>13880904
Red-Brown Alliance is inevitable. Everything is now Liberalism or Not-Liberalism. You will be co-opted and absorbed or you will be Not-Liberalism which is to say a racist and a bigot.

>> No.13881096

>>13877275
Extremes meet.

>> No.13881104

>>13880928
With Liberalism co-opting and commodifying emergent illiberal attitudes to infinite growth on a finite plane, any Liberalisation of environmental concerns must result in more Liberalism, which manifests as capitalism. Bug burgers, sterile basedfields where rainforest used to be and multiple billions forming a mega-favela across the equator are actually accurate predictions, not just banned twitter posts.

>> No.13881113

>>13877377
Criticism is not invalid simply because it originates from the right-wing. That being said, it of course does not. The most elaborate write up I have seen yet of the manufactured and coopted nature of Greta Thunberg and the FFF movement has been by a radically leftist eco activist group.

>>13878791
Because Fox News has different corporate interests from the liberal media. I also do not understand how this is supposed to be a retort, if anything it shows how the entire political field is in the hands of corporations and directed by financial interests.

>>13878856
>by who
For example the investor start up "We Don't Have Time" led by Ingmar Rentzhog for which Greta has been a youth advisor and which has popularized her in the first place. The focal point of this manufactured movement is the Green New Deal, for which a multitude of corporate interests seek to free up 100 trillion US dollars from pension funds. Make no mistake, these people don't care about the environment. What they care about is capital and power, and climate change is an exciting field for capital growth that we have only just started to tap into.

>> No.13881119

>>13877298
Does that mean outside of the US people just willingly vote right wing parties each time?

>> No.13881121

>>13877298
It's misleading because most people think of the social side of "the left" and ignore the economical side

>> No.13881132

>>13881119
Was there a concept of inner-outer parties in the Soviet Union? Political cliques more and some less following the consistent Narrative? One party to attack and another to retreat, but the direction of boths losses and gains always move in a straight line.

It could be said that political parties at all are already a coup against whatever goals a group actually has, they al;ways end up being homogenized into the Whole of whatever that country is under, be it communism, Americanism, EU, Eurasianism. Anomalies are allowed but scolded and quickly neutered. The house doesn't win every game but keep playing and your money consistently moves in their direction. Electoral politics is a casino.

>> No.13881138

>>13881121
Everyone in America is socially Liberal and fiscally conservative. Even the communists work for google and Feds, and the nazis back cops and fiscal conservatism out of nigger-spite. Everyone and everything in America is Liberal because America is Liberal.

>> No.13881158

>>13878976
the left dominates fashion, entertainment, tech, media. give it up the left is almost a 1:1 correspondence with consumerism. the only right wing institutions in america is finance and military.

>> No.13881165

>>13881158
The military is not at all right wing. The police are not right wing. They are Liberals allowed a certain level of meanness against Muslims and Liberal maximalists.

>> No.13881167
File: 41 KB, 396x382, 1464993248657.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13881167

ITT:

>hey guyze, left wing is literally right wing, I'm 'Muhrican, I know all about it
>maybe 3 books or authors mentioned
>no substantial discussion

>> No.13881170

>>13879053
and your shitty economies depend on the u.s. dollar. all these non-u.s. socialized markets couldn't get away with it if not for the capitalist market of the us that generates so much of th r&d and lending.

>> No.13881208

>>13881167
Well, you can't really articulate ideas if you're born in the Anglosphere, particularly in America. Everything is sort of subsumed in the big narrative of the Liberal world-view, and the socialism, conservatism, nationalism, communism etc. etc. is that, as viewed through Liberalism. You could even write this off to inferior human capital but I'm of the opinion that you just never actually are given room or material to orient yourself and your ideas independent of Liberalism

>> No.13881217

>>13881208
It it's kind of like living in a TED Talk.

>> No.13881219

>>13881165
ok yes overall everything i listed in left wing, but imo opinion there hasn't existed anything right wing for quite some time and military and finance are the closet to it, and theoretically would be the staging areas for true right wing reappearance

>> No.13881233

>>13881113
>The most elaborate write up I have seen yet of the manufactured and coopted nature of Greta Thunberg and the FFF movement has been by a radically leftist eco activist group.
giz a link brutha

>> No.13881250

>>13881219
We could say the same thing of the Soviet Union, but these collapse on a systemic level, not because of regressive elements serving within institutions inherently designed to operate in one way. If we want Not-Liberalism or Not-Capitalism we can't be reactionary. They have to be replaced and made obsolete. I just don't see finance and military actively bringing about these "post-" systems. It has to be natural, like gravity, like a cascade.

>> No.13881295

>>13881250
>>13881219
We're not actually in disagreement so much as I cannot let go of the supremacy of Liberalism within our discourse, making any further delineations irrelevant. Shit sucks.

>> No.13881941

>>13879662
Probably referencing one of Hitler's speeches, in particular the one on suicide. I think this one was early on prior to being elected, he talks about how widespread suicide is in Germany, why and what must be done to stop it etc.

>> No.13881956

>>13881941
link or title? can't find anything with "Hitler speech on suicide" or similar

>> No.13881969
File: 163 KB, 1200x939, C2d1Qw5XAAAFvyI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13881969

I remember attending a meeting for the socialist club at my uni after reading Captialist Realism, so I went there and asked if anyone had read it.
Of course they didn't, but they did read the "problematic" "Leaving the Vampire Castle." It's been over 60 years and COINTELPRO tactics still work.

>> No.13882066

>>13881170
We´ll do better without US dollars. Remember they are using it to control global economy to suck capital out of their sphere of influence.

>> No.13883346

>>13877275
Terrible replies ITT.

From the start, liberalism was the 'left' compared to monarchism, and nationalism in say 1848 was also on the left compared to the cosmopolitan empires. As absolute monarchy went out of style, liberalism became the center, while anarchism, communism and socialism became the left.

One of the main problems with threads like these is definitions - what defines the "right" and what defines the "left"? Marxists define everything as to the right of themselves, with free markets being the defining feature of the right, and libertarians define "freedom" as the right, with economic freedom taking precidence, while socially conservative people define social conservatism as the right and being left is simply a matter of how socially progressive you are.

This leads to contradictions like Nazis Germany being right in a social conservative's view, but left in the libertarian's view, or a progressive liberal like Clinton being left by a social conservative and libertarian's view, but right by a Marxist, or a libertarian being considered left by a social conservative, but far right by Marxists and libertarians.

So next time you start a thread like this, define your terms.

>> No.13883356

>>13877783
Based

>> No.13883367

>>13883346
t. polsci undergrad

>> No.13883390

>>13883367
Tell me where I'm wrong.

>> No.13883417

>>13883346
>One of the main problems with threads like these is definitions - what defines the "right" and what defines the "left?
Societies have a tendency to engage in political conflict with two sides, so left defines the right and right defines the left. Those two categories are particular to a given polity at a given time. They are not to be defined universally.

>This leads to contradictions like Nazis Germany being right in a social conservative's view, but left in the libertarian's view, or a progressive liberal like Clinton being left by a social conservative and libertarian's view, but right by a Marxist, or a libertarian being considered left by a social conservative, but far right by Marxists and libertarians.
Americans are beyond retarded when it comes to political terminology, so one can just disregard their opinions.

>> No.13883432

>>13883346
>This leads to contradictions like Nazis Germany being right in a social conservative's view, but left in the libertarian's view
No, morons consider Nazism left, because they don't have a slight idea what they're talking about, nobody else.

>> No.13883443

>>13878139

I’m wet right now.

>> No.13883486

>>13879030
Based retard
The malthusian argument has been debunked for a long time. Strict anti-immigration would lead to demographic collapse, and to developed societies being replaced by more polluting ones.

>> No.13883503

>>13878840
Based concern troll shitposter

>> No.13883527

>>13881233
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

not the poster but might be this

>> No.13883569

>>13883486
Will demographics even really matter as much any more as technique keeps going on?

>> No.13883607

>>13877362
No, left wing politics has its roots in French revolution, so they weren't considered left wing at all when the terminology became to be only in the decades after the American independence war.

>> No.13883638

Why is /lit/ more political than /pol/ now?

>> No.13883698

>>13883638
Cripple chan dissapearing probably, the Polititards had to go somewhere and this is the """"SMART""" board

>> No.13883731

>>13883638
philosophy which is a huge topic here is inherently political and there are a ton of books

>> No.13883772
File: 228 KB, 485x473, 1566691668898.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13883772

>>13880611
Dude, you're fucking retarded! No Guatemalan who takes a job as a construction worker in socal will ever buy a used f150 and make liberal use of resources afforded to core countries in a manner that is not conducive to environmentalism! Don't be ridiculous, you amerimutt pseud midwit mongrel swine! You should probably kill yourself, because you aren't an enlightened European. Enjoy paying for college and healthcare fascist!

>> No.13884433

>>13877298
the left right dichotomy is the most primitive, dull and useless political meme to date

>> No.13884439

bumping for the saltiest thread on /lit/

>> No.13884506

>>13877389
>they are pathologically obsessed with the word leftist
jajajajajajajajajjaajjaja

>> No.13884520

>>13879310
You're retarded. Believing in climate change doesn't make you a hardcore environmentalist. Border control is disastrous for the economy and hardly reduces carbon footprint. There are much more pragmatic policies you can implement. Even if you want to go to extreme lengths it's still retarded considering consumption is the main culprit not immigrants.

>> No.13884540

>>13880820
> le 200iq genius who spends all day posting on quora

>> No.13884542

>>13879310
how does immigration increase population size?

>> No.13884574

>>13878791
>Why, then, is the most popular and most corporatist news source in America completely against Greta?
It's fucking not you fucking liar fox news immediately cucked the second the reared her ugly head. Do you seriously think we can't tell when you lie to our face?

>> No.13884886

>>13884520
You're underestimating the effect that border control has on carbon output. Also, the economy itself has a tremendous effect on carbon output.

>> No.13884910

>>13884520
>Border control is disastrous for the economy
maybe have kids then lol

>> No.13884950

>>13879132
>I've noticed this pattern of behaviors from the media and people around me

Assmad commie shit-eater:
>NICE EVIDENCE FUCKFACE, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE, HUH? EVERY KIND OBSERVATION HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE? WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE? DUNNO A SOME PAPER OF COURSE. I WON'T SPOODFEED YOUR RETARD FACE THOUGH, WON'T TELL WHAT KIND OF EVIDENCE I NEED
(He probably means a Vox article)

>> No.13884954

>>13879141
Anti-Climate change activist site are gayer than gay porn though

>> No.13884968

>>13879251
But in 30 years who's gonna vote for your party of choice when all the retards are sterilized?

>> No.13884981

>>13879331
Man are you retarded or you trying to gaslight people on fucking public forum of all places? Lmao

>> No.13885017

So having potentially a million more first world living consumers just about every year would have little or no effect on carbon output and/or pollution?

>> No.13885248

>>13881969
>goes against vampires
>gets sucked dry by them
Poetry

>> No.13885458

>>13878524
You have to go back

>> No.13885667

>>13879149
Abbey is a little insane, but kind of based. I read his book about when he was a ranger in Arches, and he talks about how he chucked a rock at this rabbit's head and killed it for no reason, just to reflect on his ability to take life.

>> No.13885783

>start reading this thread
>but they're not real Marxists, its bourgeois, it's not real socialism
Will you people ever leave the 19th Century? Marxism and its variants are a dinosaur. There's literally nothing new about calling for the abolition of private property, the family, focus on purely material prosperity, and so on. Go read about medieval heretical movements sometime. It's all the same shit.

>> No.13885820
File: 97 KB, 750x563, africa holy fuck.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13885820

>>13883486
>Strict anti-immigration would lead to demographic collapse
Why aren't wee seeing demographic collapse in countries where these immigrants are coming from? A lot of these African countries are actually experiencing growth despite their low immigration rates.

>> No.13885822

>>13877317
>>13878791
>>13877377
>>13880854
>>13880904
Children aspire to fame. At their every turn, they seek popularity as a means to acceptance. “Please accept me!” says the child to the adult, or, most of the time, even to another child. In order to do this, the child will put on a mask they have seen to work effectively in public, and such is the case with most philanthropy, as all famous men and women know. Ignoring the aforementioned “Langille”, who brought the idea merely to London, this whole protest really started as the result of the 16 year old Swedish girl, “Greta Thunberg”, a rich yacht-owning child looking to make her way into the upper echelons of the consumer society through demonstrating how much wealth she can throw into nothing for others to flock around and be impressed by her “depth”. It really is a good strategy, and Greta has proven herself to be quite the intelligent social climber, though at the expense of the intelligence of everyone that took this event seriously. Kids want fame, and this is nothing but empty virtue-signalling to impress others.

>> No.13886050

>>13879238
>>13879450
You caught us, too bad no one will believe you until it’s 2 late

>> No.13887038

>>13880537
It's only a short pamphlet included in the Minima Moralia, not a whole book and also not specifically against astrology. It's called Thesen gegen den Okkultismus

>> No.13887247

>>13877345
>Anglos literally cannot comprehend this.
It's because of Protestanism.

>> No.13887415

>>13879451
I keep saying that but Americans keep being retarded towards it which only makes me hate them more.

>> No.13887448

>>13877275
Consider this: Liberals aren't leftist

>> No.13887453

Perfect thread

>> No.13887515

>>13879020
>climate change is an urgent problem
You mean like it's been for the last 5 decades when scientists said humanity would go extinct in a couple of years?

>that require urgent solutions.
Like giving a bunch of money to the government so that they can keep wasting it on meme technologies like solar and wind, fuelling their welfare state for the hordes of africans and arabs invading their country and misteriously losing large sums of money due to inner corruption?

>> No.13887521
File: 60 KB, 763x771, 1526994149681.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13887521

>>13877298
>everyone is far-right

>> No.13887522

>>13887515
Why are you retards so obsessed with brown people? Literally all political discussion veers into that direction for you, it seems your whole worldview is nothing more than parroting the same crap over and over again.

>scientists said humanity would go extinct in a couple of years
Literally never happened

>> No.13887526

>>13885820
Because they are poor as shit, poor countries have high birth rates

>> No.13887535

>>13887522
Immigration is like one of the biggest issues facing the west rn, dont be dishonest

>> No.13887563

>>13887535
Not really you're just a fucking loser with no future.

>> No.13887564

>>13887522
>Literally never happened
You have to literally be a zoomer to believe that. Anyone that's older can vividly remember that "scientists" and environmentalists have been preaching the swift death of humanity since the fucking 70's, some claiming we wouldn't even survive the turn of the century. Even now there are people claiming humanity won't last for more than 20 years.

>> No.13887568

>>13887563
Nice argument

>> No.13887576

>>13887568
What am i arguing against? You've provided zero evidence retard bitch.

>> No.13887579

>>13887576
So immigration isnt one of the biggest hot button issues rn?

>> No.13887594

>>13887579
Not really, provide evidence or fuck off.

>> No.13887606

>>13887522
I'm way more worried about the very real and impending issues that will arise from mass imigration from undeveloped countries with massively different cultural, ethical and religious values than those in the west than I am from the hypothetical end of humanity due to environmental issues god knows how many decades from now. In 40 to 50 years Africa will be the most populous continent on the planet and Islam will be the largest religion and if you can't see anything bad coming from this not only for the west but for humanity in general then I don't know what to tell you.

>> No.13887625

>>13877672
Nice post, very Sorelian

>> No.13887635

>>13877702
>>13877754
Jazz confirmed ok and astronomy confirmed real

>> No.13887646

>>13881113
>The focal point of this manufactured movement is the Green New Deal, for which a multitude of corporate interests seek to free up 100 trillion US dollars from pension funds.
Explain this

>> No.13887654

Marx in general, the ultrawoke crowd literally has no favorite target.

His views are eurocentric, his belief in historical progress is racist, his materialist worldview is colonizing, and so on.

>> No.13887671

>>13880537
It's in 'The Stars Down to Earth'

>> No.13887738

>>13887606
>diary entry 46 is evidence

>> No.13887894

>>13879627
Are you actually comparing the red army and the vietcong to western bourgeoisie leftists? These people didn't fight the invaders because they were well-read marxists, but because they saw their fatherland in danger.

>> No.13887922

>>13878902
Calling Rey a Mary Sue is considered sexist

>> No.13888006
File: 44 KB, 350x263, 000_zizek1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13888006

i fucking hate americans especially when they talk about anything that isn't republicans and democrats. america is a disease to science, politics, religion, god, medicine and basically everything. they try to profit of everything removing passion and any human element from it turning everyone into retarded schizophrenic machines and they spread this to the entire world with their dominance and hegemony.
btw the ML party here literally calls trannies mentally ill and devoid of any sense of reality and Foucault was bullied out of the communist party of france because of their homophobia and prejudice

>> No.13888039

I literally came to /lit/ to make a thread about Greta Thunberg manufactured capitalist ecologism and how it is related to Debord and I found this thread.
It is quite interesting that somebody already had the idea

>> No.13888148

A lot by Klossowski: Sade My Neighbor, Nietzsche and the Vicious Circle, Living Currency;
not to mention Roger Caillois

>> No.13888212

>>13887522
Americans are incredibly racist and will bring it up no matter the topic. I think it's a form of deflection.

>> No.13888227

Liberals aren't fucking leftists holy shit guys read a fuckin book

>> No.13888388

>>13877317
poopoopeepee nice opinion retard

>> No.13888397

>>13888006
This, Foucault literally became a neoliberal because he was more of a faggot than a socialist

>> No.13888450

>>13888227
no muh propaganda no muh news no muh read wittgenstein i am burger reee

>> No.13888491

>>13888450
Like fuck, only people who only watch the news would get this opinion. Reading Marx even once would tell you this.

>> No.13888496

We need flags on this board to weed out the mutts

>> No.13888503

>>13888491
It's just burgoids. They can't be helped. They don't want to be helped.

>> No.13888506

>>13888227
Please define what you think left wing and right wing are and how liberalism pertains to each of them. I am curious what definitions are in play for liberalism to be outside the definition of the left wing.

>> No.13888527
File: 25 KB, 474x355, download (31).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13888527

>>13884542
>how does adding 40 million people increase population size?
it's not rocket science

>> No.13888567

>>13888506
I follow Bookchin's rule of thumb (which got him into some trouble with Marxists): the left v right divide has to with hierarchy. Leftists meet oppose hierarchical structure--and this is the tradition that begins with Rousseau. Right wingers support hierarchy and the class structure.

Bookchin got in some trouble because under his own definition this counts right-wing libertarians, which I think to a certain degree is true. Marxists at this point boil the divide down to one's stance on capitalism, but since the regime of Stalin, Mao, etc, I think we can reject this a bit.

In any case, Liberals fundamentally support hierarchy, even if it takes the shape of being "soft" or in the form of political hierarchy. Liberals do not support direct democracy, they believe in the supremacy of the state apparatus over the citizenry that constitutes it. They also all support capitalism, as it's central to the functioning of Neoliberalism.

>> No.13888626

>>13888567
i appreciate the explanation. I do not think your definitions are functional, as it's a kind of puritanism, one which defines equality as the complete absence of any hierarchy (or am I misinterpreting you?). I think the reason liberalism is the dominant strain of left-wing politics to come out of the French Revolution is precisely because it deals with the problem of hierarchy in the most realistic way, with equality of opportunity foregrounded.

>> No.13888760

>>13878524
BASED, join the real reds to smash capitalism while holding on to the ethnic core of nations. It's a small concession to just allow us to have our ethnic core, doesn't require genocide or any population transfer, just close the border and encourage the white majority to hold on to power (same for Arab majority in other areas)

>> No.13888784

>>13878879
Exactly yeah, it's down to the general trend in the public consciousness. These retards pointing out 'b-buh Debtors was a commie!!!!' are entirely missing the point. Thomas Paine was a revolutionary in his day now his Classical Fedoraism is the establishment. I'm just making the basic birch point that the definition and focus of the political spectrum radically changes, sometimes over a period of a couple years. These pee brain fagoids can't keep up.

>> No.13888999

>>13887564
>some claiming we wouldn't even survive the turn of the century.
Link me the papers

>> No.13889128

>>13888626
I don't mean to present it as a zero sum game. There are of course degrees.
But if you look at it overall, it's hard to count liberalism as particularly left leaning when it fully subscribes to technocracy, for example. Liberal politics further fits in the right insofar as it pretty heavily delimit's the individual citizen's say in governance. Rousseau's "freedom one day a year" thing.

>> No.13889222

>>13889128
The definition of liberalism I would posit is a fundamental belief in equality, though it may be expressed differently, and an egalitarianism which aims at higher expression of that fundamental equality. I do not think technocracy or governmental power disqualify liberalism as left wing, as the defense I suspect a liberal may make is through capitalism and government previously marginalized groups have risen to greater expression of equality per economic and political participation. The aim, then, is equality and egalitarianism - left wing. The criticism levelled against liberalism is, so it seems to me, hypocrisy and lies: the marginalized groups they purport to represent and champion are merely pawns in their true aim of enriching themselves. The same criticism of a secret power motive may be attributed to absolutely any view.

>> No.13889230

>>13889222
>The definition of liberalism
should be the definition of left wing

>> No.13889277

>>13889222
Liberalism does not necessarily lie in its supposed defense of minority groups, nor do minority groups necessarily need to exist for Liberalism to function, I mean just read Hobbes. Liberalism's essence is its claim to defending basic rights of expression and property, which is of course why it flourishes with capitalism. How the system goes about itself to protect these rights of the individual almost doesn't matter, Hobbes himself famous proposed the sovereign monarch.

In this sense, liberalism also has nothing to do with material or political equality/access, as is the case in the west where a man can be homeless but still have his basic rights of ownership and expression protected.

>> No.13889299

Liberals need to be put in labor camps, but right wingers should all be shot.

>> No.13889306

>>13889299
Honestly if we could just trick the liberals into reading David Harvey a lot could be convinced

>> No.13889415

>>13889277
>Liberalism's essence is its claim to defending basic rights of expression and property
I agree, but this is why while it may not necessarily depend on its supposed defense of marginalized groups, its purported upholding of those rights is it exercising its central creed, and for that, it needs to identify where those rights may be being violated. Are you the same poster I am responding to?

>> No.13889458

>>13889415
Yes I am.
I think what I'm trying to identify in your post is that we're talking about two different sorts of critiques: yours from a sort of real-world perspective concerning the abuse by those in power in the hypocritical name of liberalism (which, for the record, I don't disagree with as a critique), whereas I'm trying to point out how at it's most basic and ideal, namely in the work of Hobbes, Locke, etc, Liberalism remains a right-wing ideology with or without the corruption by the officials who govern it. Thus my "Liberalism doesn't need minorities to function" remark.

>> No.13889492

>>13889458
The point I wish to get at is definition. You believe liberalism is disqualified as a left wing ideology because of technocracy and government which I do not believe is the case because the characteristics of left wing ideology are equality and egalitarianism. Extending certain, basic rights to everyone is an exercise in equality and egalitarianism: it is a left wing project. Liberalism collaborates with capitalism to extend economic and political participation universally. The aim is equality and egalitarian. It is left wing. The definition you provide by which you characterize liberalism as right wing seems, as alreayd stated, like a puritanism which denounces any hierarchy, inequality in any sense, but that is not, in my view, a disqualifying factor because the drive and goal is still toward an equality of a specific kind.

>> No.13889516

>>13877275
Lasch was the most rightwing lefty

>> No.13889535

>>13878250
>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CANNOT READ OTHER BOOKS YOU HAVE TO BE STUPID BECAUSE IT MAKES ME INSECURE I THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN READ THOSE BOOKS

>> No.13889540

>>13878524
join Hezbollah

>> No.13889560

>>13889492
Ah, I see what you're saying.
The question that we have to unpack, under your definition, is what is really meant by equality, egalitarianism, freedom, those sorts of things. And the following is a claim you either just agree or disagree with: that material equality or egalitarianism are, in a very serious sense, useless or unimportant if not coupled with full political access as well. This is at least the claim of Marx and Rousseau and all following leftism.

Liberalism, and we can see this from the social democracies of FDR or the Scandinavia countries, can certainly make things more egalitarian, undeniably, and it was because of these projects that such prosperity has been acquired at all. Liberalism, at its inception, was no doubt one of the most radical political projects of all history, which is in large part why no longer calling it left seems strange. But what Liberalism includes is, as stated before, a delimiting of political choice to a small group of actors, whether in a capital-R Republican democracy, or in a Hobbesian Sovereignty. There are the law makers and the law followers, with an incredibly strict gap between the two. The individual citizen does not, with the sole exception of voting on voting days, have political freedom. This is what I mean by political hierarchy.

Now of course I also said that I don't think left v right is a zero sum game. Liberalism is obviously further left than fascism, social democracy slightly further left than proper Liberalism, etc. But that doesn't mean I can qualify them as leftwing, because even in their ideal form the citizen, as designed, is not fully engaged with politics. In a certain reading, liberalism is designed to get politics out of the citizen's day to day life (thus the whole technocracy thing.)

>> No.13889632

>>13889560
I do not think it is a matter of what is or isn't agreed or disagreed with in terms of how terms are defined. You may believe material equality and egalitarianism are useless without full political access, but the definining characteristic of left wing ideology is equality and egalitarianism as an aim. Rousseau and Marx came after Hobbes and Locke, and Hobbes and Locke influenced Rousseau. Liberalism remains under the umbrella of left wing politics because it shares certain characteristics as well as a historical lineage, and only through the puritanism of "only full political access = left wing" can you disqualify it. Language is above everything utilitarian, to be honest, a means of conveying ideas, and for the reasns given, I believe people generally consider liberalism left wing and your altered definition is just confusing for them.

>> No.13889694

>>13879057
>kill the cucks that support them too
so you going to kill all the leftoids pro-immigration and open-borders?

>> No.13889702

>>13879451
out of the possible outcomes from WW2 we got the worst

>> No.13889792

>>13889694
Once capitalism is ended those will cease to be a problem and a boon for the capitalists.