Left Wing Literature

[Anonymous No.13632478]

I have seen an uptick of interest in Leftist literature here recently so I figured I would make a thread for general discussion of the subject. I will be posting a few books I feel are good introductions to actual Leftism, not identity politics/pc culture DSA larping, and then maybe later I will also include some more advanced theoretical works. Everyone is invited to post their favorite fictional literature with a leftist bent or theory/philosophy etc. Personally in interested in more fictional work right now but I can't seem to find any that isn't just George Orwell, Albert Camus, or liberal shit so if anyone could help me out in that regard i would appreciate it. Also I will sage my own replies so I am not flooding the board

Going to be starting off by reccomending Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges. It's one of the first leftist books I actually read all the way through and I read it when I was a libertarian. It didn't flip me in itself but it did a good job of revealing a lot to me i didn't already know such as the significance of the American Labor movement and how the New Left helped usher in the neoliberal nightmare we are now living in. A passage from the book:
>"Protest in the 1960s found its ideological roots in the disengagement championed by Beats such as Jack Keroauc, Allen Ginsberg, and William Burroughs. It was a movement that, while it incorporated a healthy dose of disrespect for authority, focused again on self-indulgent schemes for inner peace and fulfillment. The use of hallucinogenic drugs, advocated by Timothy Leary in books such as 'The Politics of Ecstasy' and the rise of occultism that popularized transcendental meditation, theosophy, the Hare Krishna branch of Hinduism, and renewed interest in Zen Buddhism and the I Ching, were trends that would have dismayed the Wobblies or the militants in the old Communist Party. The counterculture of the 1960s, like the commodity culture, lured adherents inward. It set the self up as the primary center of concern. It, too, offered affirmative, therapeutic remedies to social problems that embraced vague, undefined, and utopian campaigns to remake society."
>The 1960s counterculture, like the counterculture of the Bohemians or the Beats, was always in tune with commercial culture. It shared commercial culture's hedonism, love of spectacle and preoccupation with the self."

[Anonymous No.13632484]

>>13632478
>leftists calling anyone else liberal
Dilate

[Anonymous No.13632507]

No Logo is my second choice for people getting interested in the history of Leftism in America and how neoliberal ideology functions today. I disagree with Klein's practical solution (she basically argues for social democracy at the end of the book) but her detailing of how corporations spent the 80s and 90s "buying out" the Left and left-liberalleft-liberals and basically co-opting the Baby Boomer mindset to manufacture the Generation X aesthetic and sell it to their kids is something I found fascinating

She presents a pretty good critique of the rise of identity politics and pc culture on college campuses which Angela Nagle would later update in Kill All Normies:
>"For a generation that grew up mediated, transforming the world through pop culture was second nature. The problem was that these fixations began to transform us in the process. Over time, campus identity politics became so consumed by personal politics that they all but eclipsed the rest of the world. The slogan “the personal is political” came to replace the economic as political and, in the end, the political as political as well. The more importance we placed on representation issues, the more central a role they seemed to elbow for themselves in our lives — perhaps because, in the absence of more tangible political goals, any movement that is about fighting for better social mirrors is going to eventually fall victim to its own narcissism."

[Anonymous No.13632548]

3rd I will be reccomending Zizek's First as Tragedy, Then as Farce. It's a pretty good summary of Zizek's main arguments that occur throughout his work and is probably his most coherent and accessible work. The main conceit is that the liberal notion of "The End of History" which seemed to grip the popular consciousness by the end of the 1990s had to die twice, first in the form of s tragedy on 9/11 and then as a farce during the financial crisis of 2008.

>>13632484
You can hate both leftists and liberals if you like but they empirically are not the same. If you believe capitalism can be reformed in any way you are a liberal and whatever your left gesturing and virtue signaling all of your solutions will ultimately be liberal in nature. I recommend you Google the Old Left and do some light reading anon

[Anonymous No.13632574]

Lastly for histories and overviews I recommend Michael Parenti's Blackshirts and Reds. Many misrepresent this book as a blanket defense of the USSR under Joseph Stalin but that isn't true. It in fact is very critical of Stalin and spends an entire chapter detailing what he did wrong. On the other hand, it refutes myths about the Stalin era of the USSR using empirical data and also presents a strong counterargument to the usual line that "the Soviet Union was just a Left Wing version of Nazi Germany" by comparing and contrasting the two regimes thoroughly

[Anonymous No.13632640]

I won't be getting too deep into theory ITT but the best introduction to the theoretical underpinnings of Marxism in my opinion is to read
The Communist Manifesto
The Principles of Communism
Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
In that order. These works are very brief and were intentionally written for the common man to understand the principles of Scientific socialism

From here those interested in leftism kind of have to figure out which tendency they feel drawn toward. If you're interested in Anarchism I would recommend God and the State by Bakunin, The Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid by Kropotkin, The ABCs of Anarcho-Communism by Berkman, and Anarcho Syndicalism: Theory and Practice by Rudolph Rocker

If you feel more interested in the USSR/China and Leninism I would recommend The State and Revolution and Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism by Lenin, The Foundations of Leninism by Stalin, On Practice and On Contradiction by Mao (with Zizek's introduction) and Combat Liberalism as well (I wouldn't suggest reading Man's red book unless you really just want to go full Maoist but that's just me)

There's obviously a lot that I am leaving out but I feel like this is a pretty good collection of material for anyone who is interested in Leftism or in perhaps becoming a Leftist. Even if you are a Right winger and are only interested in reading any of this to shit on it with an educated opinion I still think it will be informative.

[Anonymous No.13632701]

>>13632484
Mutt

[Anonymous No.13632702]

Inventing The Future

[Anonymous No.13632716]

A lot of people are caught up in the idea of capitalist realism, wherein they believe that capitalism has existed forever and will continue to exist forever because capitalism = markets. This is part of a condition known as "capitalist realism" wherein all aspects of past society are rendered through a historical perspective that seeks to propogate the idea of capitalism as a natural force, obviously done in the interests of the ruling capitalist class. You don't need to be a history major to know of things like the divine right of kings and how the monarchies tried to "naturalize" their rule and make it seem like an essential component of society, and capitalism is the same. For a good book that shows that there is not this capitalist continuum across history, I would recommend reading "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution" and seeing that communities not only existed without any hint of capitalism, but they would often embrace values counter to capitalist "values".

[Anonymous No.13632769]

>>13632716
Yeah the whole capitalist realism thing is weird to me as a growing perspective on the Left because it directly contradicts one of the fundamental principles of Marxism (that each historical mode of production collapses due to its own inherent contradictions becoming irreconciable)

It reminds me of when Nick Land wrote
> Modernity's ceaseless, cumulative change defies every pre-existing pattern, abandoning stability without embracing the higher order of a great cycle or the simple destination of an eschatological conclusion. Although establishing something like a new normality, it departs decisively from any sort of steady state. It displays waves and rhythms, but it subsumes such cycles, rather than succumbing to them. Whilst nourishing apocalyptic speculation, it continuously complicates anticipations of an end time. It engenders a previously unanticipated mode of time and history, characterised by ever-accelerated directional transformation, whose indices are quantitative growth and qualitative innovation. The worldwide consolidation of modernity only deepens its fundamental mystery.
Around the time he started moving Right.

However the fact of the matter is is that capitalist realism wouldn't be such a popular perspective if there wasn't some truth in it(Mark Fisher, who coined the term, said that it could still be transcended but then ended up killing himself, which just looks terrible). The thing is, we're in a weird space where the End of History has been absolutely refuted but nothing has emerged to move us materially beyond it. To put it another way everyone knows that capitalist realism isn't true but nobody can seem to prove it (Adam Curtis would refer to this as "hypernormalisation)

In all honesty I'm not sure I have an answer either. I try not to fall into pessimism but it's difficult

[Anonymous No.13632848]

>>13632769
I think it's a natural consequence of the melding of the kind of some of the aspects of post-modernist thought with classical communist philosophy, a sort of natural conclusion of the '68 protests in France and the general loss of any real kind of material cohesion to society. I think the late Mark Fisher was going to reconcile the two fields with his book "Acid Communism" before his untimely death and create a basis for a material understanding of this new neoliberal society, but I suppose the work will have to fall upon someone else to do.

>In all honesty I'm not sure I have an answer either. I try not to fall into pessimism but it's difficult
It's a simple material reality that the system cannot perpetuate itself forever, the internal contradictions of capital will inevitably make the system wholly unworkable and society will either have to abandon it or simply end. And generally speaking, there is a move away from capitalism as being a wholly positive actor in society in the re-emergence of socdems in US politics and other leftwards movements such as the Yellow Vests, even if they are still weak. Inevitably during periods of crisis, these actors will only get more radical in their demands and actions, and they will be cracked down upon by the state elements whose duty it is to protect capital, only making the situation more radical. I remember when I joined the first real union when I was working as an electrician, our foreman told us that "all regulations are written in blood". I think that is true, and that there will be a great deal of bloodshed in the future of people trying to fight for improved rights and better living conditions. It is the duty of communists to organize and lead these efforts as cohesive entities that act in more ways than just trying to be reformists.

[Anonymous No.13632852]

The best left wing literature is left wing literature being used as kindling for a bonfire

[Anonymous No.13632873]

Wtf, one of the few times on /lit/ where people actually discuss books.

[Anonymous No.13632957]

Is there any book that explains how the American left moved from working class rights to intersectional pro-capitalist feminism?

[Anonymous No.13632979]

>>13632484
t. doesn't understand basic political philosophy and political history
>>13632873
clearly needs more autistic infographics of haplogroups or some shit
>>13632852
go back to your /pol/ safe space; /lit/ is for reading, including reading stuff you don't agree with.

[Anonymous No.13632983]

>>13632957
It was always the intersectionality of its day. America leftism is rooted in the Second Great Awakening, not Marx.

[Anonymous No.13632999]

to elaborate further on the idea of the integration of postmodernism into some aspects of Marxism, I believe this is an effect of a material condition not yet diagnosed by material theory, a new capitalist mode of society that maintains the aspects of capitalism while changing various aspects of the inter-social relations of society, either consciously or no. We already know that there was conscious efforts of social engineering with stuff like suburbanization and white flight, where the government and planning agencies in collaboration with big business intentionally designed suburban areas to be as atomizing as possible so as to prevent social cohesion and stop the labor organization of people along neighborhood lines as what had happened in the cities in the 20's. We also know another era of such organization - the rise of fascism in many countries. However, we know now that fascism is a laughingstock as a "political movement" - the only validity of their existence as a movement was built on their utility to the capitalist class, as Hitler was avidly privatizing the Wiemar state's assets and cracking down on radical unionizing efforts and subverting them with corporate controlled unions where things such as worker's pension funds and other methods worker's used to fund strikes were banned. But in the modern liberal state, all the utilities that fascism gave to the capitalist class have been integrated into the state - the strikebreaking brownshirts internalized into the state as the riot police, the acts of privatization is now an ideological component of neoliberalism, ect. Now the only time that fascists ever really "achieve power" is in foreign countries that lack these things, like in Chile with the overthrow of the Allende government. Knowing this, fascists are virtually a non-threat beyond their random and nihilistic acts of violence against innocent civilians, and all of their political gains are done by front parties that just enact neoliberlism.

So what is the implication of this new era of capitalist change? Well, for start there is the de-industrialization of the "West", the advanced capitalist countries have come to rely on imperialism to such an extent that their whole production is done through foreign means. Of course this makes material sense: the rate of profit is plummeting as it always does, necessitating more intense exploitation of foreign markets in order to preserve the ever-weakening state of capitalism. Of course I don't think any older leftist thinker anticipated this to this extent however, where countries like the US and the UK virtually have no more industrial production as a country. This has obvious implications to the workers of these countries that have manifested in the proliferation of the "service sector", where Americans who would have been making double the wages with benefits working in a factory now make $15/hr if they are lucky, and more often than not make far under that, with no benefits. (1/2)

[Anonymous No.13633008]

>>13632478
What’s your opinion on israel

[Anonymous No.13633012]

>>13632548
Zizek essentially predicted Trump in that book, this passage in particular was really prescient.

[Anonymous No.13633016]

>>13632873
>Right wing threads fillled nothing but memes and off-topic politics
>Left wing thread discusses left wing literature
really makes you think...

[Anonymous No.13633018]

>>13632478
America: The Farewell Tour by Hedges is a great read as well, particular the chapter on gambling.

[Anonymous No.13633030]

>>13633016
Right wing literature gets discussed it’s just bombarded by triggered lefties who haven’t read it. Anyway these are apparently real lefties, not you liberal redditor turds, or so we shall see when they respond with their opinions of israel.

[Anonymous No.13633038]

>>13632999
You're thinking way too hard about this. It's just Americanized Marxism (in the same way that Stalinism is Russified Marxism)

[Anonymous No.13633060]

>>13632957
This is covered in both Death of the Liberal Class and No Logo. The short answer is largely that current organic new developments in Marxism and left-liberalism were abused by the intelligence organizations and academia both for social control and for self-preservation.

For instance think about how the Black Panthers, who did use identity politics but mostly had a foundation of working class struggle similar to the Old Left were systematically obliterated by the State while postmodernism and liberal idpol theories were not only accepted but made dogma in its institutions. Look into COINTELPRO and the Congress on Cultural Freedom it explains a lot of it, Jackson Pollack literally got money from the CIA kek

>>13633008
One state solution with anything Zionist outlawed or destroyed. I used to think a two state solution made more sense but it's obvious that the Israeli establishment has totally given up on even pretending it isn't interested in creating a Jewish supremacist state/ethnostate.

It's not even from a moralfag perspective either. I mean I feel bad for the Palestinians but Israel is one of the USA's biggest organs for imperialism in the Middle East and "muh israel" is literally used to justify every single intervention in the region at some point. Its become obvious with the settlement shit that a two state solution is impossible at this point so I say fuck Israel and Zionism all the way down

>>13633012
I like to say that people like Zizek don't really predict things they just pay attention and don't let their personal biases get in the way of the truth. A lot of left-liberals literally thought the Republican party would cease to exist after a second term of Obama lmao.

[Anonymous No.13633078]

>>13633018
I like Society of the Spectacle by Hedges too. The chapter on porn is heartbreaking and made me realize sex-positive leftism is just liberal bullshit

[Anonymous No.13633083]

So my point is that the exportation of factory and industrial jobs is likely a way to proliferate the debt economy of the US - something like 20% of the corporations in the US are zombie corporations, only existing because they take loans to pay off their loans, something they rely upon the Fed to proliferate. Most Americans can't muster $500 in an emergency - so most purchases are done in loans. Debt is a sort of "non-productive" way of increasing the value of markets - you can claim that debt is money that is yet to be paid, but in reality nobody in the US has the capacity to pay off these debts. With the falling rate of profits making US industry less viable, my explanation is that capitalism had no other way to proliferate itself save for the debt economy. It doesn't need "real production" to have value, so it is a way for capitalism to temporarily remove itself from the obligation to actually produce anything. It's value without meaning, and it can (and does) collapse, like what happened in '08. Bush and Obama had to create a massive cash exchange from the poorest people to the richest people in order to bail out the banks and keep the debt economy going just a little bit longer, but inevitably the material reality will come knocking and they will no longer be able to just "print more money". I think this is where the post-modernist critique of society proves it's merit and attracts a lot of leftists - it fundamentally understands and diagnoses the ways in which capitalism has tried to move away from reality itself, it shows the effects that it has on people and society at large - such as the end of natural culture and it's replacement in the culture industry, the kind of schizophrenic relations people have with the world and their self-image due to the way advertising works (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9srhgHzUFd4 - a good video on the subject), and other factors. As scientific socialists, it may be worth considering the idea that capitalism has entered this sort of escapist hellscape of their own creation - where the economy is totally unrelated to reality. "The market has become so dependent on the Fed's manipulation, that in some sense how well it does has become unhinged from the real economy. Today, bad jobs reports means the market rallies, because a weak economy means the Fed will have to inject more liquidity. Tariffs mean the stock market goes up because a weak economy means the Fed will have no choice but to inject more liquidity. Federal investigations into big tech companies means the stock market goes up because a weaker economy is good for the stock market. Etc. And, conversely, when the Fed was attempting to raise interest rates, which traditionally is an indication of confidence in the broader economy, the stock market flattened and eventually began to keel over leading to the panic we saw in December. This only reversed course when the Fed caved and indicated to the market that it was going to cease tightening."
(2/2)

[Anonymous No.13633086]

Please and for the love of god, if you think the logical conclusion of the thought of Deleuze and Foucault is right wing traditionalism then just go kys.

[Anonymous No.13633092]

>>13632848
>I think the late Mark Fisher was going to reconcile the two fields with his book "Acid Communism" before his untimely death and create a basis for a material understanding of this new neoliberal society, but I suppose the work will have to fall upon someone else to do.
This is extremely interesting to me because I've been thinking the same recently. I've been reading "Living in the End Times" by Zizek and he has s lo mg section where he talks about how one of the struggles of the Left in the 20th century was with the "sexual revolutioj" and compared it to two Christian perspectives on sex (absolutely no sex outside of marriage vs occasional extramarital sex if it means the marriage will be saved). He basically said that neither situation is ideal but the latter decision is more realistic and kind of implies that Leftists having such little social dynamism when they get into power is often what leads to their revolution sniffing itself out

[Anonymous No.13633094]

>>13633008
Israel is a settler-colonial state and a puppet of US Imperialism. It can only exist because the US wills it so, and when the US collapses in the future they will be inevitably annihilated by the Arab powers, and their treatment of the Palestinian people will be returned in kind to the Israeli people.

[Anonymous No.13633104]

Having this conversation is almost impossible because anglos will shit the thread up by either posting unironic liberalism or flaunting their lack of knowledge on what leftism is.

Anyways I recently read Lenin's "Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism" and I was pleasantly surprised. It actually focuses mostly on the development of monopoly capital after the period of free competition in the 19th century. Capitalism still is structured in the same way as it was 100 years ago (fully developed monopoly capital) but the ideology of "competition" is still here like a zombie.

[Anonymous No.13633119]

What is the point of street protests in the digital age?

[Anonymous No.13633138]

>>13633092
I think that's true, but also I think it's something of a shift in the base of capitalism itself, something that has drastically effect the superstructure of society. I talked about it in
>>13632999
>>13633083
but I can't really draw a cohesive conclusion about how all of it really fits together. It's like having all the pieces of the puzzle but not really being able to put them together, so I would like to know what you think on it.

[Anonymous No.13633147]

>>13633104
I think that today the concept of imperialism is a bit outdated. I obviously still think you can see the wealthy nations and the most exploited ones but I think that since Lenin's time it has become a bit more complicated due to the fluid nature of global capital since the 70s and the spread of neoliberalism.

Basically I think Lenin's fundamental concept of imperialism is still applicable but the face of it has changed. Rather than a coalition of oppressor nations exploiting one group of people's you now have a much more diffuse group of global bourgeoise who have no allegiance at all to things like nationality or tradition so they end up being able to only enrich themselves personally without having go build labor aristocracies within their homeland or even maintain a healthy national bourgeoise. This the plot becomes a group of international individual elites regulating a sea of atomized individuals who have been trained to only be able to express themselves through consumption. You could I suppose argue that this group can still constitute a labor aristocracy but my point had more to do with how in this environment fascism can't exist as anything more than a spectre. It's pretty obvious from Trump and other right wing populists existence that the establishment has no interest in actually resurrecting overt fascism of the 20th century and is more interested in using the appearance of fascism to placate the segments of western populations who traditionally fell for it as they redouble the cultural hegemony of neoliberal social values and the literal economic control of monopoly capital by what the right would refer to as "globalists"

I've been told that this is basically the conceit of Negri and Hardt's "Empire" but I haven't read it yet so idk.

[Anonymous No.13633157]

>>13633119
>What is the point of street protests in the digital age?
It's like football hooliganism except for hipsters.

[Anonymous No.13633159]

>>13633094
>they will be inevitably annihilated by the Arab powers, and their treatment of the Palestinian people will be returned in kind to the Israeli people.
Based but they'll just flee to some other country instead so the Arabs won't get revenge.

[Anonymous No.13633168]

>>13633119
best case scenario is the disruption of communal happenings and being a headache for authorities, both of which promotes the existence of the cause, and hence why "permitted" """protests""" aren't protests at all.

[Anonymous No.13633181]

>>13633086
>Please and for the love of god, if you think the logical conclusion of the thought of Deleuze and Foucault is right wing traditionalism then just go kys.
I've heard this argument before as well as the argument that Foucault is basically just a neoliberal but I have never read the 3 of them so what is the justification for it?

[Anonymous No.13633201]

>>13633094
>inevitably
it will never happen

[Anonymous No.13633208]

>>13633201
t. late Roman aristocrat as the barbarians are at the gates

[Anonymous No.13633215]

>>13633181
Some neo-reactionaries found Deleuze and Foucault via Nick Land and started appropriating them

[Anonymous No.13633230]

I've been meaning to read some Marxist historiography, and "A people's history of the French Revolution" has been recommended to me. Has anyone read it, is it any good?
Side note, tell me about Althusser. I hear him name-dropped all the time and I don't know where to start.
Also I keep hearing about a meme book called settlers, mostly in a negative light. Has anyone read it?

[Anonymous No.13633244]

>>13633230
>hearing about a meme book called settlers,
Go on /leftypol/ and make a thread about it to see them seethe.
The book is fucking stupid btw.

[Anonymous No.13633248]

>>13633230
>People's History of the French Revolution
pretty based in understanding the underlying basis of liberalism and it's revolutionary ideals and how they were subverted for the interests of capitalism, and shows how liberalism has become the predominate ruling ideology for the capitalist class.
>Althusser
not read him myself but he has a lot of interesting analysis on stuff like language that I've seen in paraphrased form, so he probably has some merit in reading.
>Settlers
basically idpol garbage and is generally adialectical
>>13633244
leftypol is gone since infinitychan went down, they've relocated to bunkerchan now.

[Anonymous No.13633253]

>>13633230
Don't read settlers anon, it's only popular among autistic Maoists and DSA liberals

Can't speak for the other 2

[Anonymous No.13633304]

>>13633094
>puppet of US Imperialism
How many Congresspeople are dual citizens of Israel again? How much of the media is Jewish owned? How much does the US fund Israel's existence? The US is Israel's lapdog not the other way around. Israel's and the Saudi's (the ones who got away with 9-11).

[Anonymous No.13633338]

>>13633304
>thinking congress has any control over the military of the US anymore
lmao

Even if they did, the people who get rich off the imperialist conflict aren't beholden to nation or ideology - they are a transient capitalist class that proliferates conflict to get profits, both from the military using expensive and over-priced garbage and from the refugee cheap labor that will come out of the conflict later. It's not done for any greater purpose - it's all just to make some more money, and to replicate the machinery that allows for this capitalist class to make money. They are just as willing to push the US into supporting Rojava, a communist revolutionary force, as they are willing to push any kind of fascist government in South America or Africa. Because the ideological force doesn't matter as much of the proliferation of conflict - Zionism is just a good source of conflict because it calls for the continuous extermination of Arabs, and thus necessitates constant wars and a massive police state, not unlike past fascist governments.

[Anonymous No.13633343]

>>13633030
> Anyway these are apparently real lefties, not you liberal redditor turds, or so we shall see when they respond with their opinions of israel.

As if conservatives aren't the first ones to suck on the zionist teet. Unless you're (a) a Fascist or (b) a Marxist, your camp is firmly on Israel's side.

[Anonymous No.13633357]

>>13633094
so whites are jewing the jews?
fucking based
what an empovering interpretation of reality

[Anonymous No.13633361]

>>13633230
>althusser

unless you're already familiar with philosophy, don't.

>settlers

complete shit, sakai has no historical basis on the conclusions he reaches.

[Anonymous No.13633369]

go back to bunkerchan, you /leftypol/ incels

[Anonymous No.13633380]

>>13633338
>the people who get rich off the imperialist conflict aren't beholden to nation or ideology - they are a transient capitalist class that proliferates conflict to get profits
who do you think they are?
>Jews are only 0.2% of the World’s population, but 17.46% of the World’s richest. Thus their representation is 8,730% of their population share.
KEK when will you open your eyes

[Anonymous No.13633390]

>>13633343
The difference is conservatives who support Israel are all old people, while antifa retards are on 4chan to save israel

[Anonymous No.13633400]

>>13633248
>>13633253
Thanks for the replies anons

>>13633361
>Unless you're already familiar with philosophy
I'm working on that!

[Anonymous No.13633408]

>>13633380
>only attack some of the bourgeoisie
nah thanks senpai, I prefer non-idpol action

[Anonymous No.13633418]

>>13633408
They are literally the absolute majority of the rich you dummy.
When you say international capitalist you mean jew, you just don't realize it.

[Anonymous No.13633424]

>>13633230
i am currently reading it and tbqh it's not bad.
for the most part sakai talks about the history like white and black ""unity"", how the eurocentric view of history is enforced on everyone, the war of independence, the difference between black prole and white "prole", etc and he doesn't pull this shit out of his ass but he gives sources.
don't listen to braindead leftypol retards because for them the race struggles that have shaped history into what it is, are the same as the struggle of trannies and faggots because of their eurocentric idea of "idpol" and "political correctness".
if you are not white that book is an essential read

[Anonymous No.13633448]

>>13633424
Redpill me, does Settlers come to the conclusion that white people should be murdered? based if do.

[Anonymous No.13633459]

>>13633418
Even if they were the majority, our qualm is against the bourgeoisie as a class, and we aim to eliminate them as a class - Jew, black, white, male, female, whatever. It makes no difference what they individually are - as individuals are merely cogs in the mechanism of capitalism, replaceable by design and in the scope of the totality of the system, individually worthless. This is why leftists are against individualist terrorism, among other reasons.

[Anonymous No.13633490]

>>13633369
>stop discussing ideas I disagree with
Are u autistic

[Anonymous No.13633499]

>>13633418
If they're the majority of the rich and lefties want to get rid of all of the rich then why are you against lefties?

[Anonymous No.13633503]

>>13633424
lmao, sakai is wrong on multiple accounts. One that comes to mind is how he wrote of "the Socialist Party of Eugene Debs" opposing Asian immigration, which is true, yet by adding "of Eugene Debs" he omitted to note that Debs himself opposed the policy, as did the left-wing of the party in general (also Debs wasn't actually part of the SP leadership, which disliked him due to his affinities with said left-wing.) Thus I've seen people claim that Debs opposed Asian immigration simply because Sakai was careless with his phrasing. He's a fucking parasite that inflicts the mind of all new leftists with his essentialist garbage.

[Anonymous No.13633561]

>>13633499
Because lefties are not really interested in dealing with rich people.
Their only goal is to destroy the white middle class and white people in general, whether it's intentional or not.

[Anonymous No.13633579]

>>13633561
ah yes, who can forget the declaration of Lenin in 1917:
"All good Slavs must racemix with blacks, or hispanics, but not asians because that would raise our IQ and we have to be autistic as possible to achieve communism."

[Anonymous No.13633612]

>>13633561
random twitter liberals aren't lefties you dumb faggot, get off /pol/

[Anonymous No.13633623]

>>13633561
Go nazbol senpai you're too spooked to go full lefty

[Anonymous No.13633631]

>>13633561
No, their goal is to destroy white working class people under the conception that white men are the devil

[Anonymous No.13633666]

>>13633631
[Citation Needed]

[Anonymous No.13633699]

>>13633490
It's not as if we, non-leftists, would be allowed to discuss ideas you disagree with when you inevitably win.

We already aren't outside of anonymous imageboards.

[Anonymous No.13633705]

>>13633424
it's american garbage

[Anonymous No.13633710]

>>13633666
I live in the real world satan

[Anonymous No.13633718]

>>13633623
leftism and class struggle are spooks

[Anonymous No.13633754]

>>13633710
>I live in the real world
>Satan

[Anonymous No.13633757]

>>13633215
I don't think neoreaction appropriates Foucault really, it just asks "if (thing) is a social construct, who is the constructor? Why does it have to be constructed the way it is?" Usually with the implication that Power is creating the constructions in question, and that you aren't Just Beeing Yourself, thus, why should these constructions be promoted in society?

[Anonymous No.13633795]

>>13632507
>co-opting the Baby Boomer mindset to manufacture the Generation X aesthetic and sell it to their kids is something I found fascinating
elaborate?

[Anonymous No.13633829]

>>13633795
Basically by the time Gen X was reaching adulthood the private sector had perfected selling teenagers and young adults rebellion or the simulation of rebellion so that they could redirect any discontent back into the establishment and even manufacture discontent that wasn't really there for a buck. Grunge and nu metal is a good example of it. If you were a middle class white kid in the 90s you had literally nothing to be mad about or sad about so you had these subcultures that were literally created by corporations and thrust upon an entire generation. It's why Woodstock 99 looks like some kind of political riot out of context but when you learn what actually happened it basically just amounts to a bunch of people being violent angry retards for the sake of it and to look cool for the pay per view audience

If you take anticapitalist sentiment out of anti authoritarianism you can basically get limitless profit out of it because vague displays of individualism will always be appealing to people without actually threatening power

[Anonymous No.13633845]

>>13633829
You can't have anti-capitalist anti-authoritarianism (anti-authoritarianism is a non-starter anyway). Authority is necessary to prevent production for profit from happening.

[Anonymous No.13633965]

Questions for lefties ITT: Do you think religiosity and human conflict would disappear in a world where there is worker's ownership of the means of production?

[Anonymous No.13633979]

>>13633965
Not me. That's something that's exists outside of economic systems. The conflicts caused because of capital would obviously disappear.

[Anonymous No.13633990]

>>13633979
do you actually think that if workers owned the means of production, they would create an unlimited amout of resources?
because that is the only way to eliminate conflicts

[Anonymous No.13634008]

>>13633965
I think religiosity would, over time, become a niche thing, though not disappear entirely. Basically only the genuinely religious (not me, I can assure you) would remain/become religious, and those who today are merely religious because of upbringing/social norms would drop all pretense.
Conflic in general? Well, hopefully wars between states would stop. But conflict as a whole, no.

[Anonymous No.13634025]

>>13633845
Well you know what I mean. Anyway Adorno did a better job explaining it then I can
https://youtu.be/-njxKF8CkoU

[Anonymous No.13634031]

>>13633990
I don't want to eliminate conflicts. That is not why I am a leftist.

[Anonymous No.13634034]

>>13634008
>Well, hopefully wars between states would stop
The only way for that to happen, is that states don't exist.
But the reality is that this goal will never be reached, internationalism is promoted only in white countries, and it serves the function of promoting non-white nationalism.

[Anonymous No.13634037]

>>13633990
Most socialists today are more for a managed transition into automation rather than ensuring that workers indefinitely own and control the means or production. In other words looking at what can be automated immediately and automating it and then democratizing everything else and accelerating the pace towards automation so that eventually the majority of socially necessary labor would be machine driven

[Anonymous No.13634041]

>>13634031
Why are you a leftist?

[Anonymous No.13634047]

>>13634034
Ah of course
"Kill all white people" t. Garl Marks

[Anonymous No.13634055]

>>13633965
Organized religion would, but there would still be general practitioners. Conflict would be greatly reduced from the end of imperialism and the destruction of the capitalist mode of production, but interpersonal strife will always be a thing. Marxism is a cure for capitalism, not the world's issues.

[Anonymous No.13634062]

>>13634041
Because I believe capitalism is unstable and a better system can replace it. Why didn't it? Because the technology hasn't outgrown capitalism in the past. It really is strange that the so called "Marxist" revolutions, and "Marxist" states - all of whom I am sympathetic too, so don't give me "not real socialism" bullshit - were in the most backwards places on earth. I just don't think capitalism is able to cope with the near future world.

[Anonymous No.13634082]

>>13634062
How do you define capitalism?

[Anonymous No.13634097]

>>13633705
*amerikan

[Anonymous No.13634104]

>>13634047
Nah, i'm saying that white leftist are too stupid to see how they are exploited by the expansionist/colonialist self interest of non-whites.

[Anonymous No.13634107]

>>13633490
LOL. I'm a center leftist and I can't even discuss ideas on /leftypol/ without getting banned.

[Anonymous No.13634108]

>>13634082
See this is where I get into trouble because I can very easily give a very simplistic Marxist definition of capitalism: a system where workers are exploited (leave out the moralistic baggage the word has) to produce surplus for private property, but that wouldn't really explain why it is becoming a thing of the past, would it? But let's go with that for now. A market economy which features private property, where in workers work to advance capital.

[Anonymous No.13634110]

>>13634047
Praxis theory endorses the murder of anyone who stands in the way of revolution and it is the left-wing consensus nowadays that white stands in the way of revolution thanks to their accumulated wealth (relative to other races).

[Anonymous No.13634112]

>>13634107
Because it's a dedicated communist board. There are parameters by which non-commies can post, but in general it's by and for communists.

[Anonymous No.13634114]

>>13634110
>races having wealth
what is this fucking nonsense

[Anonymous No.13634120]

>>13634110
man, I am white. Where is my whitey wealth check? I'm poor as shit and need some of that racial solidarity :^)

[Anonymous No.13634126]

>>13634062
>Because I believe capitalism is unstable and a better system can replace it
It has economic crises, but it is somewhat self correcting. I'm not sure that there is any actual alternative. And in the case of automation and infinite abundance, you wouldn't even need an economic system, since economy is the study of how to distribuite limited resources.
That being said, what i really don't get is what you benefit from this. Why would you care?

[Anonymous No.13634130]

What a cringe thread. Read some Frankfurt school books instead of the latest memes.

[Anonymous No.13634134]

>Not realising you need credible threat of communist revolution so that capitalism can self-correct properly

[Anonymous No.13634138]

>>13634108
Isn't private property just a form of delegated authority and use of said property? Why is ownership by the Party (all public ownership thus far has been implicit ownership by the State and I know you'd have an autistic fit if I phrased it that way) preferable to private ownership?

[Anonymous No.13634149]

>>13634110
I was born in an eastern european village with no electricity and running water, where do i get my white privilege?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13634154]

>>13634082
The fruits of labor are delineated by an owner class. The use of “legal” documents standing as the only proof that this is how things should be.
Obviously far more complicated than that.

[Anonymous No.13634155]

>>13634108
My problem with anti-capitalism is that any system who tries to overthrow it will have to outproduce it in order to not be swallowed, and to overthrow capitalism you have to be as exploitative of workers as capitalists themselves. Hence Stakhanovism and the 966 work schedule in China.

[Anonymous No.13634159]

>>13632478

[Anonymous No.13634164]

what are you fucking spergs on about
>>13634155
china is just as capitalist as the vast majority of the world, don't kid yourselves
>>13632957
the american "left" is mostly liberals but mostly just violent crushing of labor did the trick

[Anonymous No.13634165]

>>13634154
How is this any different from the Party distributing the product of society's labor from each according to his ability to each according to his needs?

[Anonymous No.13634171]

>>13634165
Muh state capitalism.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13634181]

>>13634165
I’m not a statist. I believe people can do it themselves.

>>13634159
Take your flaming sack of shit out of here.

[Anonymous No.13634188]

>>13634181
OK so you're an anarcho-liberal?

[Anonymous No.13634191]

>>13634171
the "socialist states" of the 20th century were actually state capitalism but whatever
>>13634165
fuck a party distributing shit
what we should *actually* do is have a free association of producers organized in communes drawing the means of consumption via a common stock
>>13634159
shut up retard

[Anonymous No.13634195]

>>13634154
>The use of “legal” documents standing as the only proof that this is how things should be.
How else should we determine property?
On the basis of brute force?

[Anonymous No.13634198]

>>13634181
>>13634191
Not argument

[Anonymous No.13634202]

>>13634191
How do you define "state capitalism"?

[Anonymous No.13634204]

>>13634126
>It has economic crises,
It indeed has and I believe we will be in one very soon, but the system has been on life support for a while now. In the 80s the rate of profit declined so you had the neoliberal period (don't worry I hate the word as much as you probably do), which stopped wages rising with productivity, which obviously meant the profits were saved. Now there were others things that were done to increase profitability and so on, but I wanted to give an example. The system already needs interference to be saved and is on its way to collapse. Perhaps not a drastic THE collapse, but a failure nonetheless.
>I'm not sure that there is any actual alternative
I do believe there's one, but no one is really searching for it. People don't want change. Take the DSA for instance. Their "socialism" is simply nordic welfare states. Then we have people who just want "lets return to the soviet union", which is a change but if we are honest with ourselves, soviet socialism, which I don't have anything against, collapsed under its own weight and never was a real alternative to liberal capitalism.
>And in the case of automation and infinite abundance, you wouldn't even need an economic system
Do you believe we can really reach over abundance and eliminate work?
>what i really don't get is what you benefit from this. Why would you care?
Because it will impact me. A failure of the banks will mean issues in people making transactions, that will lead to not being able to buy, that means I won't have bread on my plate. Then comes the fact that capitalism is unstable to cope with ecology because of the chaos of the market, which will again impact me not having bread on my plate.

[Anonymous No.13634205]

>>13634195
all property is inherently backed by violence, is it not? the paper is just signifying that
>>13634198
nice meme idiot, come back when you actually read political thought that doesn't exclusively come from imageboard memes

[Anonymous No.13634211]

>>13634202
the soviet union still had wage labour, commodity production, and working for a state
i'd call that "state capitalist", even if it is a bit vulgar
china is even more egregious now

[Anonymous No.13634213]

>>13634191
>what we should *actually* do is have a free association of producers organized in communes drawing the means of consumption via a common stock
1. who is "we"
2. you can do it right now with your friends, if you have any

[Anonymous No.13634226]

>>13634205
I've read the book, unless you're misquoting me and your autistic choice to reply to multiple posts within one post which has caused you to mistake my identity. Either way you shouldn't do that.

[Anonymous No.13634227]

>>13634191
That's extremely liberal.

[Anonymous No.13634237]

>>13634213
"we" being the working class, whether the most autistic trans pagan witch cashier or the most grizzled hard labourer
i don't particlarly expect anyone to do it currently, they'd just get killed
>>13634227
yes, basic marxism is liberal, apparently

[Anonymous No.13634238]

>>13634211
It's that when you ask people to define capitalism, they generally answer something like the "exploitation of labour by private power", which is a good definition, but if you say "isn't the historical record of exploitation of labour by non-private power kind of bad too, though?" they will answer "oh, that's capitalism too".

[Anonymous No.13634244]

>>13634237
>yes, basic marxism is liberal, apparently
Well, yes? "Free association" should immediately set off liberal alarm bells.

[Anonymous No.13634264]

>>13634205
>all property is inherently backed by violence
So is there any alternative?

[Anonymous No.13634273]

>>13634237
>they'd just get killed
What? By who? You could create a commune or whatever at any time, nobody gives a shit.

[Anonymous No.13634283]

>>13634238
well, quite literally, it is
substituting a state for a private capitalist doesn't change the mode of production
it doesn't matter who is doing it
it's like how black capitalism is just as stupid and exploitative as white capitalism
it'd be more appropriate to define capitalism as a system of wage labour, exploitation, and commodity production for exchange
>>13634244
"free association" really isn't the correct term to use, you're actually kind of correct. think of it like "everyone holding the means of production in common". "free" is kind of an abstract
>>13634264
getting rid of property?
>>13634273
yeah, but we're not talking about dipshit hippy communes or whatever. we mean the laborers taking control of the means of production.

[Anonymous No.13634289]

>>13634244
Liberals are extensively against free association however, they are all about as idpol driven as your average /pol/ack. They are racially deterministic, both in their societal understanding and their material reality (since their mechanisms assist capitalism in commodified violence against minority groups for the sake of profits and dividing workers) as well as other realms of deterministic thought. The more rightward the liberal, the more deterministic their understanding of the world, leading up to the wholly deterministic fascists who believe in whack shit like pre-determined outcomes.
>>13634273
Untrue, there is no way to exist outside of the capitalist system. You would need to have ownership of private property, and whatever you would have to produce would have to rival the production of capitalism. Of course, the point of a commune is to not have the same exploitative practices of capitalism, so the commune would inevitably fall behind against the capitalist mode of production.

And that's before even considering the state action against communes, which has been seen the world over, even in "socialist" countries like Denmark.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13634301]

>>13634188
What’s this? Dry water?
No, just an anarchist. Egoist but syndicalist. Prim/transhuman.

>>13634195
We would live where we could. Passing nothing on to children. Personal property would be mutually respected.

>>13634198
Sowell is a weak meme, dingus. Read more...
Or watch some youtubes.
Wolff, Harvey and Cockshott, to name three.

Good thread. Will read more of it l8r

[Anonymous No.13634309]

>>13633829
What's your take on Daria?

Also, what's your take on Boss Babe insta thots?

[Anonymous No.13634317]

>>13634283
>substituting a state for a private capitalist doesn't change the mode of production

And changing a worker's cooperative for the state or the private capitalist would? How?

[Anonymous No.13634328]

>>13634283
"Common ownership" can only exist through some center of authority. Thinking otherwise is liberalism.

[Anonymous No.13634344]

>>13634317
well, a "worker's cooperative" isn't what i want either. i want private property abolished, all the means of production held in common, and all things made (means of consumption) to be held in common until they are released from the common stock to satisfy some want or need
>>13634328
that very authority can just be the laborers, themselves, you know

[Anonymous No.13634352]

>>13634328
the presumption that authority = a state is silly, anarchists advocate for a devolution of the state into committees who can act through mechanisms like consensus democracy and other forms of non-coercive cooperation to get things done. It's not even historically incorrect per se, there are a lot of examples of it working throughout history with mutual aid between communicates that you can see in "Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution". And I'm not even an anarchist.

[Anonymous No.13634367]

>>13634204
>but the system has been on life support for a while now
Hmm, the only problems that i notice is a lack of proper regulations. Which is of course a bit more complicated to implement considering the fact that all major parties are financed by corporations.

>I do believe there's one, but no one is really searching for it
So you think that hypothetically there could be one, but you don't exactly know what it is.

>Do you believe we can really reach over abundance and eliminate work?
Yes indeed, considering the future of A.I. probably all jobs will be obsolescent (even the intellectual/artistic/creative).
The major problem is the lack of cheap and clean energy production. Once we reach this, we can desalinate water and use 3d bioprinting.

>Because it will impact me.
These things take decades, so i was implying that as the usual leftist you don't have kids thus you don't really have a good reason to worry about the long term.

>unstable to cope with ecology because of the chaos of the market
It's a combination of a lack of regulations and current technological issues.

[Anonymous No.13634380]

>>13634283
>. we mean the laborers taking control of the means of production.
Nibba create your own means of production

>getting rid of property?
How about i go start living in your house?

[Anonymous No.13634388]

>>13634289
>there is no way to exist outside of the capitalist system
You and your friends move to a desert island, and you can organise the production of goods and services as you wish right now.
Nobody is forcing you to be part of the larger society if you don't like it.
Build your own shit.

[Anonymous No.13634396]

>>13634301
>We would live where we could.
You can live that way right now.

>Passing nothing on to children.
This would eliminate one of the greates incentives to be productive for most human beings on this planet.

[Anonymous No.13634411]

>>13634380
>Nibba create your own means of production
the workers already make the means of production, the capitalists just own them
do you think jeff bezos shits out those machines in the amazon warehouses? no, he has capital and pays laborers to make them
>How about i go start living in your house?
well i've been homeless myself so i understand
but really though, private property means "shit you use to make profit", not "your living quarters or your anime shitposting machine you're typing on right now"
>>13634388
you and i both know economic systems don't just come out of nowhere, they're birthed from previous systems
nothing exists in a vacuum
>>13634396
>You can live that way right now.
ever heard of "rent"
>This would eliminate one of the greates incentives to be productive for most human beings on this planet.
you'd have living quarters and the various other needs *by default*

[Anonymous No.13634415]

>>13634380
>Nibba create your own means of production
you can't just "create" means of production, you need the capital to do so. To have capital, you have to exploit the means of production to make excess capital. And to maintain those means of production, you have to compete against other capitalists who will exploit their workers to squeeze out more production. Capitalism is explicitly designed in such a way that non-exploitative businesses practices go under, and the most sociopathic exploiters win. It's why sociopathy is a common mental disorder among CEOs.
>>13634388
>You and your friends move to a desert island
Almost all islands that are viable for habitation are privately owned, often by billionaires. Even those that are owned by natives are being evicted by rich people, as was the case when Jeff Bezos recently kicked out native Hawaiians off his resort island.
>organise the production of goods and services as you wish right now
Even if we could (we can't, see above), why would we? The things that are common in society was produced by the proletariat. Without the working man, there is no society. It is about time that the working men of the world own what they create.
>Build your own shit.
lel

[Anonymous No.13634446]

>>13633699
>leftism will inevitably win
feels good man

[Anonymous No.13634453]

>>13634411
>private property means "shit you use to make profit", not "your living quarters or your anime shitposting machine you're typing on right now"
I could rent a room in my house and make money, i could create a software on my anime shitposting machine, everything is potentially could be used to make profit.

[Anonymous No.13634462]

>>13634453
except your computer and home have uses *other* than making commodities and profit
a factory doesn't

[Anonymous No.13634472]

>>13634411
>ever heard of "rent"
as i said, you can move to an isolated area that doesn't belong to anybody or anything and do what you want.
>you'd have living quarters and the various other needs *by default*
Why don't most people just work enough to pay rent and eat some basic food? Why do we strive to have a career and to make real money, well part of it is social status/recognition and the other part is leaving resources for our kids. If you eliminate that there isn't much of a motivation to be productive and hard working, just do the bare minimum to survive.

[Anonymous No.13634479]

>>13634472
>leaving resources for our kids
that makes no sense in relation to the declining birthrates of whites and the accelerating birthrates of blacks. Are blacks more hard-working because they have multiple kids? Are whites less hardworking and giving up because they don't want to have kids? Doesn't this de-facto make gays parasites?

[Anonymous No.13634512]

>>13634415
>you need the capital to do so. To have capital, you have to exploit the means of production to make excess capital
No, you can use a natural resource that isn't owned by anybody (like the stuff you could find on a desert island) and use your own labour to create something that could be used as a means of production.
> you have to compete against other capitalists
You don't have to compete with anybody, just produce what you need and consume it.
There are local self sufficient communities you know.

>Almost all islands that are viable for habitation are privately owned
>>There may be as many as a couple million uninhabited islands in the world: the total of all sea, lake, and river islands could be 1-2 million, and all but 11,000 or so are uninhabited.
I'm sure that some of them are habitable.

>The things that are common in society was produced by the proletariat
But not by you.

[Anonymous No.13634524]

>>13634301
>Read more...
Give me books.
>Or watch some youtubes.
Absolutely not.
>Wolff, Harvey and Cockshott, to name three.
These are not books.

[Anonymous No.13634530]

>>13634462
>a factory doesn't
What do you mean?
We could close it and me and my kids could sleep in it or i could let my kids play around.

[Anonymous No.13634549]

>>13634479
No, you don't understand or pretend not to.
It's not the amount of kids, it's the tendency to want to ensure the future well being of the kid/kids.
Gays are a very rare exeption to normal human being and they generally conform to the normal society since they also tend to be more narcissistic.

[Anonymous No.13634575]

>>13634512
>No, you can use a natural resource that isn't owned by anybody (like the stuff you could find on a desert island) and use your own labour to create something that could be used as a means of production.
That's literal fantasy. There are no "unowned natural resources" - everything is dived up into private property holdings.
>You don't have to compete with anybody, just produce what you need and consume it.
If you were some kind of primitist sure, but we aren't. We want an industrialized society in which the workers own the means of production.
>I'm sure that some of them are habitable.
And? Surviving isn't living.
>But not by you.
Kek, I was an electrician who did rounds in factories, making sure the machinery and all else was in check. I directly worked on keeping the means of production running, and ensured that the workers could work without fear of electrical mishaps. All workers contribute to the maintenance of production and the process of production itself, and the distribution thereof. The capitalist has no actual input in this process - and thusly has no right of taking profit from these interactions. We do not aim to create a new economic order by moving to some island - we plan to destroy the current one and bring about a new age of communism, and with it a worker-owned mode of production.
>>13634530
Well if you close it and make it a house, it isn't a factory then, it's a flat.
>>13634549
>No, you don't understand or pretend not to.
I honestly don't because it makes no sense.
>It's not the amount of kids, it's the tendency to want to ensure the future well being of the kid/kids.
What? American boomers are the worst parents then, because they completely destroyed the planet with their rampant ecological change through the promotion of consumerist society. The humble African nations who have silently worked to improve their countries, like those under the leadership of Thomas Sankara, is clearly aiming for a better future for their kids. Brought the literacy rate from near-nothing to almost universal, ended starvation, expanded public schooling, ended the segregation of people under capitalism, ect.
>Gays are a very rare exeption to normal human being and they generally conform to the normal society since they also tend to be more narcissistic.
Wait, what was pride then? Unless I am missing something, parading around with dildos isn't commonplace in the US.

[Anonymous No.13634655]

>thread was good, lots of book talk
>/pol/ shows up
>drastic drop in quality

[Anonymous No.13634657]

>build your own shit
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P73REgj-3UE
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwRFH7MH5N0
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7nqBgklf9E

[Anonymous No.13634659]

>>13634655
Let's get it back on track

[Anonymous No.13634665]

>>13634657
It would unironically be easier to do this under communism for way more people if they wanted to

[Anonymous No.13634671]

>>13634655
Can you blame them for the distrust created by a lack of left wing discussion about israel

[Anonymous No.13634677]

>>13634657
>live as an agrarian society
literally no communist advocates this, we don't want to "build" a new society, we want to take back the one we made.
>>13634659
Ever read pic related? It's a damn good book about the racial clashes during the time of MLK and the like, and I use it as a good primer as to why gun ownership should be a common thing among leftists.

[Anonymous No.13634682]

>>13634309
>Daria
I've never seen it but Mike judge is pretty based shame that he's a libertarian because he's a smart guy

>boss babe Insta thots
Can be hot but not much else beyond that. One of the most immediately recognizable symptoms of neoliberalism's tendency to make everyone turn their entire existence into a brand to promote for the accumulation of social capital in place of actual solidarity with their fellow human

[Anonymous No.13634684]

>>13634671
>a lack of left wing discussion about israel
are you being sarcastic or what?

[Anonymous No.13634689]

>>13634671
lol

[Anonymous No.13634701]

>>13634677
I actually haven't but I'll check it out that looks good.

Makes me think about how Reagan and conservatives originally were the ones who pearl clutched about gun violence because of the Black Panthers and how gun control even became a part of American political discourse because old white guys were scared of black communists taking advantage of their second amendment rights and being soveirgn citizens lmao

[Anonymous No.13634707]

>>13634671
Have you ever heard of this little thing called the Red-Green-Brown alliance? How about the boycott divest and sanction movement?

[Anonymous No.13634733]

>>13632574
The most interesting part of that book is the part about the USSR’s fall and the undeocratic and fucked up shit Yeltsin did.

[Anonymous No.13634757]

>>13634575
>We want an industrialized society in which the workers own the means of production.
>And? Surviving isn't living.And? Surviving isn't living.
You are just making excuses as to why you should steal stuff. Literally "gibs me dat cauz me need".
>we plan to destroy the current one and bring about a new age of communism, and with it a worker-owned mode of production.
There are a lot of problems with that, lets ignore the usual way in which it goes aka totalitarian commie regime.
What would be the incentive to hire new people to replace people who are less productive?
You would need some sort of market, for the exchange of goods and services.
And the most important thing is that, you would need to make the revolution everywhere at the same time if you don't want to have to compete with capitalist societies.

>Well if you close it and make it a house, it isn't a factory then, it's a flat.
The point is that it can be anything that you want, it all depends on how you use it.

>What? American boomers are the worst parents then,
You are thinking on a global scale, while the parent thinks of the well being of his individual kid.
>Wait, what was pride then?
Those are literally displays of narcissism, which is more common among faggots. And narcissism also leads to care more about social status, which is one of the reason why people tend to be more productive than necessary for the survival.

[Anonymous No.13634762]

>>13634665
what does communism have to do with that?
Nibba just move to a desert island and do it.

[Anonymous No.13634766]

>>13634677
>we want to take back the one we made
Who is "we"?
What is your contribution to society?
You got what you deserved for your labour when they payed for it.
Stop being an entitled neet piece of shit fatass.

[Anonymous No.13634785]

besides proudhon where can I read about mutualism
just mutualism

[Anonymous No.13634791]

>>13634757
>muh totalitarianism
the idea that economic liberalism leads to freedom is false as shown by china. totalitarian capitalism is just around the corner for the west. as soon as there's any real crisis the mass surveillance apparatus will be fully turned against the general population.

[Anonymous No.13634803]

>>13634757
>You are just making excuses as to why you should steal stuff. Literally "gibs me dat cauz me need".
What? That's the literal position of the bourgs, as they do not create value - they take it.
>What would be the incentive to hire new people to replace people who are less productive?
Why fetishize productivity as a sole indicator of worth? What qualifies productivity as a societally good indicator? With automation we easily vastly overproduce what we need, and that's "productivity". Its a useless value indicator since we exist in a moment of societal automation, a better indicator would be quality of work, something lacking in capitalism, and even actively worked against by things such as planned obsolescence.
>You would need some sort of market, for the exchange of goods and services.
nope, central planning and distribution can handle everything when augmented with technological processes. Read Cockshott.
>And the most important thing is that, you would need to make the revolution everywhere at the same time if you don't want to have to compete with capitalist societies.
Nope. Capitalism depends exclusively on the exploitation of 3rd world countries for profit. If those 3rd world countries are protected from exploitation, capitalism dies in a month.

>The point is that it can be anything that you want, it all depends on how you use it.
Pedantry, it's no longer used as a mode of production if you turn it into a flat. If workers are working it and bourgs are extracting surplus value from it, it's a means of production, and needs to be the sole property of the workers so that the value of their labor is not being stolen.
>You are thinking on a global scale, while the parent thinks of the well being of his individual kid.
If the planet ends, not much of a hope for the kids.
>Those are literally displays of narcissism, which is more common among faggots. And narcissism also leads to care more about social status, which is one of the reason why people tend to be more productive than necessary for the survival.
pft, it's a display of being against the existing societal mode, now co-opted by corporations to play into the progressive performative liberation politics, since they are allies of capitalism.

Have an actual argument, liberal.
>>13634766
Communists.
We built it.
The extraction of value from our labor is theft. Wages are theft by their nature.
Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous No.13634889]

>>13634701
Yeah, understanding the contradictions of the modern right is some of the funniest and most depressing shit on the planet. It's happened all throughout history as well, in the aftermath of Shay's Rebellion, Washington personally ordered for the confiscation of all the Farmer's guns. So much for the 2nd.

[Anonymous No.13634901]

>>13634659
This sounds pretty reactionary

[Anonymous No.13634903]

>>13634803
>That's the literal position of the bourgs, as they do not create value
They have the initial good idea on what kind of business to create and how to organize it.
>we exist in a moment of societal automation
Once automation actually takes over the workes wont be needed.
>central planning and distribution can handle everything
Aka soviet union and why it failed.
> If those 3rd world countries are protected from exploitation, capitalism dies in a month.
Meh, it just more resources and cheaper labour. This would be more expensive but it wouldn't be the end of capitalism.
>Pedantry, it's no longer used as a mode of production if you turn it into a flat.
If i use my computer to watch porn it isn't used for production but if i decide to use it to create a software now it is a mode of production and if a hire a person to help me code because i had a good business idea that is "exploitation".
>the workers so that the value of their labor is not being stolen
Look workes aren't not smart enough to do so, if they wanted they could create a business just organise together and fund a project. Do they? Nope, because the average wagie isn't capable.
>If the planet ends, not much of a hope for the kids.
People don't worry about the well being of the planet in the next couple of millenia, that doesn't invalidate the point.
> it's a display of being against the existing societal mode
Not really, it is just a narcissitic "oh look at me, me soo different and special".
>"we" == communists
No, the majority of workers don't subscribe to commie politics and they contribuite nothing to technological innovation.

[Anonymous No.13634913]

>>13634344
The production will have to be organized even if its means are held in common, how do you think you can stop this organizing institution from becoming undistinguishable from the state or the corporation in its exploitation of workers?

[Anonymous No.13634920]

>>13634344
>that very authority can just be the laborers, themselves, you know

It's like leftists keep pretending the work of Robert Michels didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.13634949]

>>13632478
Read Kojeve on Hegel and realise communism is just a fancy term for the american way of life, ie. full intersectional social justice, and global cybernetic market democracy. Take the trotsky to neocon pipeline and realise the CIA Maggie Thatcher and goldmann sachs and the RAND corporation were the real communists all along. Radical leftism is bad faith anti moral posturing and most of the time an excuse for white male resentment.

[Anonymous No.13634950]

>>13634903
>They have the initial good idea on what kind of business to create and how to organize it.
Not true even back in the day, the capitalists were largely derived from the already rich nobles from the aristocracy, who won their wealth from conquest. In the UK, something like 75% of the landlords have aristocratic blood. Actual class mobility is something that was really a thing only for a limited time in history, and that was founded on the exploitation of the third world - which is impossible to achieve now, as there are no more markets to expand into.
>Once automation actually takes over the workes wont be needed.
Incorrect, capitalism cannot survive without the underclasses consuming things. It's inherently incapable of it.
>Aka soviet union and why it failed.
What? Central Planning was how it became a nuclear space-faring superpower. It wasn't even centrally planned socialism either, it was centrally planned capitalism with the oversight of the socialist vanguard.
>Meh, it just more resources and cheaper labour. This would be more expensive but it wouldn't be the end of capitalism.
There is literally next to no production outside of the 3rd world and China lmao. Everything you own is built off their labor.
>If i use my computer to watch porn it isn't used for production but if i decide to use it to create a software now it is a mode of production and if a hire a person to help me code because i had a good business idea that is "exploitation".
Again, pedantry. Firstly you would have to be autistic to hand someone the computer you browse porn on to, secondly socialism would never allow you to "hire" that programmer to begin with, they would have their own computer to program with.
>Look workes aren't not smart enough to do so, if they wanted they could create a business just organise together and fund a project. Do they? Nope, because the average wagie isn't capable.
It's idealistic to think that everyone can start a small business. If everyone could, nobody would work the factories. You have no real solution to the internal exploitation of capitalism and the inability of the working class to improve so you blanket them all as "retards". As always, the rightoid contempt for the common man prevails over their usual rhetoric.
>People don't worry about the well being of the planet in the next couple of millenia, that doesn't invalidate the point.
Try 20 years.
>Not really, it is just a narcissitic "oh look at me, me soo different and special".
So, what I said? Standing outside the social norm?
>No, the majority of workers don't subscribe to commie politics and they contribuite nothing to technological innovation.
Lmao @ thinking society can survive without workers.

I have a counter-proposition for you - since the bourgs are all so great and capable of making hyper-great civilization - why don't they just hand us the means of production, and they can create their tech utopia on the desert islands without the retard workers?

[Anonymous No.13634957]

>>13634655
look anon, leftism/communism is just like religion, it may seem very interesting and complex but the fundamental premises are bullshit thus once you just make some questions the entire sand castle falls apart

[Anonymous No.13634967]

>>13634901
Literally how

[Anonymous No.13634977]

>>13634950
>Lmao @ thinking society can survive without workers.
Soon it will and then the working class will be left to starve, hence why they’re no longer cared about anymore and immigrants are being ported in for meat.

[Anonymous No.13634984]

>>13634977
Anon you big dumb, the immigrants are just the workers now since they can be exploited for cheaper labor lmao. It's the same premise by which the capitalists exported industry abroad to SE Asia. It's easily stopped since the capitalists parasitically depend on the workers.

[Anonymous No.13635007]

>>13634984
We can all be exploited for cheaper labor if there’s immigrants, that’s how it works you retard, are you implying some conspiracy theory of under the table untaxed wages? The worker will be replaced, that’s why they don’t matter. The immigration also has the effect of dividing the populace so there is less resistance to the bourgeoisie. Great terrible things are coming and it will be globalists fault.

[Anonymous No.13635012]

>>13635007
You act as if migrant and worker are mutually exclusive, which is what really empowers the bourgs. They can and will organize along leftist lines if you work with them, and migrant trans-national labor unions are going to be a major feature of any US worker's movement by necessity. That labor organization promises better wages, gives them access to the worker's funds collected by dues to strike, ect. It would bring them up to snuff with the rest of the working class and give the proletariat a much stronger position in fighting capitalism.

[Anonymous No.13635019]

>>13632478
The best argument against leftism is that leftists are universally unhappy and neurotic. These are notthe revolutionary workers of 1917, these are people who hate themselves, these are people who have given up, children of the middle classes, wracked with guilt and failure who want to unload their shit on others, who promote atomised hedonist lifestyles, prostitution, sodomy and transvestism, but like its not even sordid or cool, leftist narrowmindedness of middle class morality minus any trace of bourgeoisie stability. Most of them are plainly mentally ill

[Anonymous No.13635020]

>>13635019
>The best argument against leftism is things unrelated to the actual ideas they put forwards

[Anonymous No.13635033]

>>13635020
I care more about how people exist than what they believe. If leftist ideas create these sorts of people that is a perfect reason to avoid them. Im just taking a stand against a monolithic corporate culture which i think embodies decadence.

[Anonymous No.13635040]

>>13635033
>I care more about superficial frivolous nonsense than actual analysis of society

[Anonymous No.13635041]

>>13634950
>already rich nobles from the aristocracy
Among them, those who had good ideas made money, those who didn't lost it.
> no more markets to expand into
just have a good idea, a new product or service
>Incorrect, capitalism cannot survive without the underclasses consuming things
i guess they would just produce for themselves and exchange among each other.
Or it could be a system which isn't "economic" since there is no scarcity in resources.
> Everything you own is built off their labor.
My house was build with locally, so was my clothing and my food. I guess my computer was build in china, but it could have been build in my country.
>the rightoid contempt for the common man prevails over their usual rhetoric.
well the average man on the street doesn't seem that smart or does he?
> why don't they just hand us the means of production
gibs me dat, it always ends this way

[Anonymous No.13635049]

>>13635020
>ad hominem is a fallacy
not in nu leftism. identity politics is nothing but ad hominem and you anti-idpollers are a small minority with exactly zero say in the thrust of the movement.

[Anonymous No.13635060]

>>13635041
>Among them, those who had good ideas made money, those who didn't lost it.
"Good ideas" like playing into the mercantilism of successful imperialist countries? That's just one tier removed from literally just taking the money by force lmao.
>just have a good idea, a new product or service
Absolute idealism
>i guess they would just produce for themselves and exchange among each other.
That was tried, in Shay's Rebellion. The US government forcefully stopped it and forced them to use the USD.
>Or it could be a system which isn't "economic" since there is no scarcity in resources.
Absolute idealism
My house was build with locally, so was my clothing and my food. I guess my computer was build in china, but it could have been build in my country.
The resources were acquired elsewhere, and even if yours anecdotally wasn't, the vast majority of everything is
>well the average man on the street doesn't seem that smart or does he?
lmao
>gibs me dat, it always ends this way
lmao
>>13635049
You say that as if liberals are leftists, or that there is a cohesive left movement in the US. Plus the right is more idpol than libs even, so it's not the best base to critique liberal on.

[Anonymous No.13635065]

>>13633078
Don't you mean Empire of Illusion?

[Anonymous No.13635069]

>>13635033
>Im just taking a stand against a monolithic corporate culture which i think embodies decadence.
so leftism. the western pseudo-leftie is primarily a symptom of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.13635074]

>>13635012
You act as if migrant and leftist aren’t mutually exclusive. And what’s the point of getting promised better wages when it was immigration that lowered them? That’s called racketeering in my book. Also a mixed race left society runs into problems of equality, because as the proof stands all the races are not equal and therefore one would be supporting the other. Even if there wasn’t definite proof of differences in racial iq, and empirical proof in the form of the state of nations, evolution guarantees this inequality. Ethnostates are genuinely the most equal, besides if leftist theory that economic grounds determine everything is correct then an african ethnostate would contain the worlds most unused farmland and untapped natural resources and become superior so that should tickle your little pickle. I believe that a homogeneously united populace stands a better chance at resisting the whims of their bourgeoisie rather than hoping that different peoples can be united, because that really is all there is on the lefts side, hope and good intentions.

[Anonymous No.13635097]

>communist vs. radlibs vs. alt-right screeching
This is all hopeless. All of you are liberals.

If you think democracy is a possible form of government, you are a liberal.
If you believe in "autonomy", you are a liberal.
If you believe in class struggle, you are a liberal.
If you believe in collective ownership as a possibility except through the State, you are a liberal.
If you think that The People are the driving force of history, you are a liberal.
If you believe that property can exist without an overarching (non-democratic) authority, you are a liberal.

[Anonymous No.13635098]

>>13635012
Why would many of the migrants give a fuck though? The ones that arent lumpenrproles likely stay in their own countries

[Anonymous No.13635099]

>>13635060
All politics is identity politics. I am going to stick to european values culture and identity over corporate leftist masscult, thanks. 'Anti idpol' leftists are as self loathing and neurotic, perhaps far more than their liberal counterparts, not even a real tendency but merely an internet sect of people who proved too autistic to social climb leftist institutions and the leftist ecosystem. When every leftist facebook group newspaper and reddit seems to be going down the same black hole of self flagellation and toadery, maybe the problem is actually with the leftist ideology its values and assumptions are fundamentally pathological.

[Anonymous No.13635106]

>>13635074
>And what’s the point of getting promised better wages when it was immigration that lowered them?
Bosses lowered them, migrants had no say - just as they have no say now, without unions.
>equality equality blah blah blah
No Marxist believes in any kind of equality. Even the foundational statement "to each according to need, from each according to ability" is implying inequality of people. Only spooked rightoids believe it, leftists just believe in a more equitable society in which people can be assured a baseline standard of living that is afforded to us easily by industrial production, and giving them the capacity to peruse hobbies and crafts and whatnot as it suits their interests rather than being forced into nothing but labor to survive, as capitalism does.
>racial nonsense
ok whatever, even assuming all of this is true, what does it matter? why couldn't we just live in a society together because some people have more or less IQ? it's all so tedious trying to pick apart all the presumptions that leads to the conclusion rightoids want to make.
>>13635098
Better wages? Benefits like healthcare? Not getting deported by ICE so their employer can not pay them on payday? Basic rights? I dunno, I am at a loss.
>>13635099
>All politics is identity politics.
kek

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.13635113]

>>13635097
If you are a woman, you are a liberal.
If you are an atheist, you are a liberal.
If you don’t understand philosophy, you are a liberal.

[Anonymous No.13635117]

>>13635113
>If you are a woman, you are a liberal.
True in the current year
>If you are an atheist, you are a liberal.
Unironically true
>If you don’t understand philosophy, you are a liberal.
Correct, and this applies to Marxists and Anarchists especially.

[Anonymous No.13635119]

>>13635060
>mercantilism of successful imperialist countries?
If by that you mean the countries that created the majority of technological innovations then yes.
>The resources were acquired elsewhere
yes, and they payed for it
Anyway, most western countries could be economically self sufficient.
It would just make the life for the average men more expensive.
>>gibs me dat, it always ends this way
>>lmao
lmaoing at it doesn't make it less true

[Anonymous No.13635130]

>>13635099
>corporate masscult
if you refuse to acknowledge the role capitalism (or even european values themselves) has played in this outcome you're going to be stuck blaming scapegoats and phantasms.

[Anonymous No.13635135]

>>13635113
Psst, come over here for a sec, I got something I want to show ya....

[Anonymous No.13635137]

>>13635119
>If by that you mean the countries that created the majority of technological innovations then yes.
Countries create nothing, people do you spooked liberal.
>yes, and they payed for it
Oh thank the lord they get paid 15 cents per every pair of $30 jeans
>Anyway, most western countries could be economically self sufficient.
Can't be
>It would just make the life for the average men more expensive.
Only in capitalism
>lmaoing at it doesn't make it less true
It's never true, it's just laughing at how hard you rely on the existence of capitalism as justification for the existence of capitalism. It's circular logic, there is nothing to do but laugh at it because it's inherently pathetic and laughable.

[Anonymous No.13635149]

>>13635130
I am willing and ready to defend my values against woke capital and globohomo. When leftists talk about decolonization they dont mean nonwestern precolonial values, but a degraded form of christian slave morality and consumerism.

[Anonymous No.13635155]

>>13635137
The country (by which I mean the State currently in possession of that territory) creates the commodity by organizing machines, manpower, property relations, trade routes, and so on - to assert that The People "made" anything is unironically liberal.

[Anonymous No.13635159]

>>13635106
>Bosses lowered them, migrants had no say - just as they have no say now, without unions.
Should I even read the rest of your post if you don’t understand economics? Typical of the left.

[Anonymous No.13635164]

>>13635106
>Better wages? Benefits like healthcare? Not getting deported by ICE so their employer can not pay them on payday? Basic rights? I dunno, I am at a loss.

And this is shit democrats are basically ensuring them if they win again at least on paper. Theyre still retarded working class buffoons, theres no reason for them to give a shit about leftism. But if you want to learn spanish and preach at your nearest home depot go for it

[Anonymous No.13635177]

>>13635155
The state doesn't exist without the people - anything done by the "state" is an organization of people. The state is often just the enforcing body of the will of the rich.
>>13635159
The exploitation was conscious - done by the bosses to make money. They decided to use it, weren't forced. This is just how capitalism works - negative innovation (or exploitation as normal people call it) is the most common form of innovation to create profits, it's the underlying driving force of capitalism itself.
>>13635164
Lmao, the Dems have and will always do the same shit Trump does immigration wise. They are the "left" wing of capitalism, and won't upset the existing mode of production.

[Anonymous No.13635180]

>>13635149
and you'll take up this fight how exactly?
so far white nationalists have been doing terror which is really only serving to advance the police state and turn the public even more against them.

[Anonymous No.13635183]

>>13635177
>The state doesn't exist without the people
Liberal. No social organization exists without a shared Center of authority, without this you have a pack of shrieking monkeys.

[Anonymous No.13635190]

>>13635177
Do you seriously not understand that labor is a resource subject to supply and demand? Goddamn the left is not bright.

[Anonymous No.13635202]

>>13635183
Social organization = the state. It's a unique form of development that came with the development of stratified societies, not the default of all civilization.
>>13635190
Labor is not a resource in the conventional sense, if anything it's more akin to a service - something you sell on an hourly basis rather than a fixed lump-sum payment, as you do with most "resources". Supply and demand is also not subject to labor, because capitalism purposefully always maintains a set level of excess "supply" of labor, in the army of reserve labor. Honestly it's funny to think that econ 101 shit holds a candle to actual material analysis

[Anonymous No.13635214]

>>13635202
Does the miner who works the hardest get more of a cut of gold?

[Anonymous No.13635215]

>>13635202
Labor is subject to supply and demand, goddamn I hate you retarded fuck lefties making up the world as you go along. You’re such an unbelievable menace.

[Anonymous No.13635224]

>>13635137
>Countries create nothing, people do you spooked liberal.
Countries are made out of people, with common traits, well at least they used to.
>Oh thank the lord they get paid 15 cents per every pair of $30 jeans
No, they are locally produced, they buy just the material.
>Can't be
Why not? I mean many goods and services wouldn't be available but you aint gonna die of hunger.
>It's circular logic
You are just trying to justify the fact that you want to steal stuff nibba, that's all it is, and you aint even good at it.

[Anonymous No.13635228]

>>13635202
>
Social organization = the state. It's a unique form of development that came with the development of stratified societies, not the default of all civilization.
Yes, and the State has only gotten more stratified with technological development. This shouldn't be regarded as a bad thing unless you aspire to technological neo-primitivism where things magically get done, somehow.

>Labor is not a resource in the conventional sense
It is, a given State can command a finite amount of labor time per day.

>Supply and demand is also not subject to labor, because capitalism purposefully always maintains a set level of excess "supply" of labor, in the army of reserve labor
>supply and demand doesn't apply to labor because some people are unemployed
>Honestly it's funny to think that econ 101 shit holds a candle to actual material analysis
lol

[Anonymous No.13635234]

>>13635180
We all know the left is just going to keep escalating with the idpol to the point things are clear for the white masses. After every terrorist attack they will double down on their bullshit.

[Anonymous No.13635248]

>>13635214
In this example, what you mine is what you get since it's an example of mutualism. All workers own their own means of production and the products they create with it, and competitively sell it on an open market with other workers.
>>13635215
It would be if not for the mechanism capitalism made to specifically mitigate it lmao
>>13635224
>Countries are made out of people, with common traits, well at least they used to.
Oh yes, I remember all those Romans with their exactly similar characteristics across the whole empire.
>No, they are locally produced, they buy just the material.
Oh thank the lord they get paid 5 cents per all the material that goes into making $30 jeans
>Why not? I mean many goods and services wouldn't be available but you aint gonna die of hunger.
If only you knew how wrong you were.
>You are just trying to justify the fact that you want to steal stuff nibba, that's all it is, and you aint even good at it.
You are just trying to justify the existing system by fact the existing system exists.
Also it's nigger, you fucking redditor.
>Yes, and the State has only gotten more stratified with technological development
Not exactly, the state has gotten more pluralistic due to liberal ruling ideology, but more totalitarian to protect the decaying system of capitalism.
>This shouldn't be regarded as a bad thing unless you aspire to technological neo-primitivism where things magically get done, somehow.
"actually the security state is a good thing, you should be happy with the consumerist hell we exist in"
>It is, a given State can command a finite amount of labor time per day.
Nope - not without coercion, which is what they use. Work is coerced out of workers because they need to labor to earn money, which is needed to survive. Early alternatives, like the self-sufficient rural communities in early America, were crushed by Washington and the federal army, and the farmers forced to use the USD. This is true of all capitalist countries - because they don't want alternatives to their system.

[Anonymous No.13635293]

>>13635248
>Nope - not without coercion, which is what they use.
No shit, do you think I'm a right-liberal or something? Living in a society (and thus being subject to authority) is a fact of human life.

>Work is coerced out of workers because they need to labor to earn money, which is needed to survive.
Yes, and? You could have a nation of peasant farmers if you want to, but it probably wouldn't last very long on the world stage...

>Early alternatives, like the self-sufficient rural communities in early America, were crushed by Washington and the federal army, and the farmers forced to use the USD
Of course they were, the government needed to install a national currency and centralize power since the Articles of Confederation were a mess.

[Anonymous No.13635299]

>>13635248
You’re literally making up random shit. Left wingers live in a fantasy world.

[Anonymous No.13635311]

>>13635248
>Not exactly, the state has gotten more pluralistic due to liberal ruling ideology, but more totalitarian to protect the decaying system of capitalism.
Totalitarianism doesn't mean anything. It's a liberal word for "when the State openly, as opposed to through some intermediary body that totally isn't dependent on State recognition and promotion, does something that I don't like". Obviously when this is done for ends that liberals DO like, it's Progress.

>"actually the security state is a good thing, you should be happy with the consumerist hell we exist in"
Consumerism is a product of liberalism, and you can live in a non-security state if you want to. There's plenty of them in the Third World. Furthermore, all Communist states had robust security forces to root out subversives, are you sure you want to argue this point?

[Anonymous No.13635317]

>>13635299
The lefty doesn’t care what’s correct, but instead has an idea and they believe it is imperative that it is correct.

[Anonymous No.13635372]

>>13635293
>No shit, do you think I'm a right-liberal or something? Living in a society (and thus being subject to authority) is a fact of human life.
Again, state=/=society
>Yes, and? You could have a nation of peasant farmers if you want to, but it probably wouldn't last very long on the world stage...
You don't need that kind of coercion to organize an industrial society, plenty of leftist countries have proven as much.
>Of course they were, the government needed to install a national currency and centralize power since the Articles of Confederation were a mess.
Literally had nothing to do with that - they crushed these farmers on behalf of the merchants that largely funded the government, because they wanted to force them to use the USD for the sake of more profits. As is often the case, the state was the tool of the rich.
>>13635299
Imagine not only being this ignorant, but invading a thread that was being productive and talking about books and theory to not argue the points of the books or theory but to reiterate /pol/ talking points, then to only be mad and call lefties living in a fantasy world when they easily dismiss the same points they've easily dismissed for years at this point. No wonder /leftypol/ bans you all on sight - you are incapable of not making everything worse with your presence.
>>13635311
>Totalitarianism doesn't mean anything. It's a liberal word for "when the State openly, as opposed to through some intermediary body that totally isn't dependent on State recognition and promotion, does something that I don't like". Obviously when this is done for ends that liberals DO like, it's Progress.
You act as if there is real distinction between the right elements of the state and the "left" liberal part. They both push for the security and surveillance state in equal measures, often with the same rhetoric - see Hillary's super predator shit.
>Consumerism is a product of liberalism, and you can live in a non-security state if you want to. There's plenty of them in the Third World. Furthermore, all Communist states had robust security forces to root out subversives, are you sure you want to argue this point?
*product of capitalism.
also
>third world
>not in a de-facto security state due to forced reliance on first world aid and enforcement arms from the US military
kek
>all Communist states had robust security forces to root out subversives, are you sure you want to argue this point?
The difference of communist states was that the states were appropriated by the proletariat through a Worker's Vanguard to achieve their ends. Rooting out reactionaries and bourgs is a fine thing to do, and any state that does it is a friend of mine. But all of this is done knowing that the communist state will eventually be devolved into worker self-control.

[Anonymous No.13635395]

>>13635372
>You act as if there is real distinction between the right elements of the state and the "left" liberal part. They both push for the security and surveillance state in equal measures, often with the same rhetoric - see Hillary's super predator shit.
>You act as if there is real distinction between the right elements of the state and the "left" liberal part.
No, I don't. All rightists in the current year are right-liberals. My operational definition of liberal is "basically anything that's come out of the British tradition for the past ~300 years".

>*product of capitalism.
Capitalism is a facet of liberalism.


>not in a de-facto security state due to forced reliance on first world aid and enforcement arms from the US military
Most of these countries aren't even competent enough to run a secret police force.

>The difference of communist states was that the states were appropriated by the proletariat through a Worker's Vanguard to achieve their ends.
There's the liberalism again...

>Rooting out reactionaries and bourgs is a fine thing to do, and any state that does it is a friend of mine.
So why are you complaining about secret police forces again?

>But all of this is done knowing that the communist state will eventually be devolved into worker self-control.
Great, let's go back to liberalism again...

[Anonymous No.13635406]

In fact, I'll go further. /pol/ is the exact image that they portray niggers to be. Lazy, ignorant idiots who continually ape each other's talking points and infographs without end because they have no creative will or enough of a sense of individuality or creativity to construct an original argument. They piss and shit these overplayed points everywhere they go without regard to context or content of the threads they are in, disrupting all aspects of the board's culture and goings-on so that they can have the meager gratification of spouting the same argument they've spouted and all their friends have spouted several times. But when they are understood as the fucking niggers and parasites that they are, they chimp out and call everyone else a slew of meaningless and poorly constructed insults and get in some more self-gratification through talking up how smart their points were. But they always know they are fucking niggers, and as a result they always have a deep contempt for everyone who is better than them - the average worker, other posters, whoever and whatever. It's how they so easily justify the mass shootings they make where they kill more white people than they do their supposed racial enemies - they hate them all in equal measure. All the rhetoric about the state and it's utility is more or less just a way to protect their fucking fragile egos from the no-no talk, and it's a cancer on 4chan and all chans like it.

[Anonymous No.13635411]

>>13635248
>all those Romans
A multiethinic empire isn't the same thing as a nation
>Oh thank the lord they get paid 5 cents per all the material that goes into making $30 jeans
yes, the value of the product is in it's production not just the price of the initial material, holy shit
>If only you knew how wrong you were.
Fascist italy was economically isolationist, a nation is capable of surviving on local economy.
>fact the existing system exists
Because it works? Meanwhile what do you have? A bunch of failed examples? A hypothetical ideal society that you can't try out on a small scale?

[Anonymous No.13635414]

>>13635317
whereas /pol/ smacks of mental hygiene and logical rigour

[Anonymous No.13635431]

>>13635395
>No, I don't. All rightists in the current year are right-liberals. My operational definition of liberal is "basically anything that's come out of the British tradition for the past ~300 years".
Then you are fundamentally wrong, because liberalism came out of the French revolution in the 1800s.
>Capitalism is a facet of liberalism.
What
Liberalism is the ruling ideology of capitalism - not the other way around.
>Most of these countries aren't even competent enough to run a secret police force.
you'd be wrong then, cause many do.
>There's the liberalism again...
At this point liberalism means basically nothing because how its applied
>So why are you complaining about secret police forces again?
I am complaining about the ends it is used towards - the continuation of capitalism.
>Great, let's go back to liberalism again...
Again, meaningless usage.
>>13635411
>A multiethinic empire isn't the same thing as a nation
"it wasn't real nations"
>yes, the value of the product is in it's production not just the price of the initial material, holy shit
Wrong, it is composed of the labor that went into creating the material, the price of the material itself, the labor that went into the material, and the market forces that needed to get it in all of it's points of production to where it needed to go. But in reference to my point, I deplored the low wages of the 3rd world workers that were getting you the end products you crave.
>Fascist italy was economically isolationist, a nation is capable of surviving on local economy.
l m a o, if only you knew how much the fascists relied on international capitalism to stay afloat. If only you read books.
>Because it works? Meanwhile what do you have? A bunch of failed examples? A hypothetical ideal society that you can't try out on a small scale?
Oh yes, we're all quite pleased with how everything just works Mr Todd Howard.
>A bunch of failed experiments
Far from failed, and often forcefully destroyed by capitalist elements to preserve themselves.

[Anonymous No.13635448]

>>13635406
>make some questions about the fundamental ideas and the doctrine
>the interlocutor gives a very superficial answer which relies on specific assumtions
>question set assumtions
>"noooo you ebil stupid /pol/nig"
>hmmmm

[Anonymous No.13635481]

>>13635431
>"it wasn't real nations"
If you don't understand the difference between a multiethnic empire and a nation state i don't know what to tell you.
>I deplored the low wages of the 3rd world workers that were getting you the end products you crave.
Again, the majority of products that i consume are locally produced, besides my computer.
>how much the fascists relied on international capitalism to stay afloat
I'm sure that to some degree the economy was interdependent, that isn't to say that one couldn't have a national economy completely isolated from the rest of the world.
>Oh yes, we're all quite pleased with how everything just works
You don't even know what you would want to implement.

[Anonymous No.13635493]

>>13635431
>Then you are fundamentally wrong, because liberalism came out of the French revolution in the 1800s.
No, it goes back earlier.

>Liberalism is the ruling ideology of capitalism - not the other way around.
No it isn't. Liberal society leads to capitalism. Why? Because the conception of society as a collection of abstract autonomous individuals that come together to form a government to protect property rights (which supposedly exist independently of said authority), is quintessentially liberal. Also, philosophies aren't epiphenomena of property relations.

"Consumerism", i.e. to reject any notion of orienting society towards achieving a Good other than maximal consumption of commodities, is liberal. It should go without saying that attempting to orient some society towards a Good would be denounced as totalitarianism.

[Anonymous No.13635499]

>>13635481
>If you don't understand the difference between a multiethnic empire and a nation state i don't know what to tell you.
Somewhere between jack and shit
>Again, the majority of products that i consume are locally produced, besides my computer.
means somewhere between jack and shit when it's all imported materials from the 3rd world - without it, you wouldn't have the product.
>I'm sure that to some degree the economy was interdependent, that isn't to say that one couldn't have a national economy completely isolated from the rest of the world.
kek, read Blackshirts and Reds you ignoramus
>You don't even know what you would want to implement.
Worker's control of the state through unions, thus organizing the state by the workers, for the workers
Social liberation and the criminalization of hate speech
The end of the prison-industrial complex and the rehabilitation of cities through the destruction of the highway system and introducing robust public transport
Annihilation of American suburbia and the implementation of mixed rural/urban living spaces that provide enough living space for people while having large stretches of wildlife, thus eliminating the rural/urban divide
Implementation of state control of residential areas, making it so that housing and associated costs are less than 5% of any given paycheck
The end of centralized farming and the proliferation of community farms
and more policies, but I've refuted your point hard enough already

[Anonymous No.13635510]

>>13632478
If you want to understand Leftism, go read that comic book about how every single man on Earth died, and all that was left were women, and everything immediately became dystopian.

[Anonymous No.13635519]

>>13635493
I should expound on this further and note that Marxist revolutionary thought is essentially a riff on this theme. We have a collection of abstract autonomous individuals who now form a Class, who will seize control of the State via forming a vanguard party in order to protect their property rights (except almost all revolutions have occurred with the help of a ruling elite). After all, proletarians are being deprived of the product of their labor, and thus their property, by the capitalists. Then they'll dissolve the State and form a free association of producers and distribute the social product of the collective's labor from each according to his ability to each according to his need. How is this going to happen in light of the historical trend towards the expansion of State power? Who knows. Also, we'll all be freer and more autonomous because traditional social relations will melt away as they're mere epiphenomena of property relations.

[Anonymous No.13635545]

>>13633612
yikes

look up 'overton window'

[Anonymous No.13635552]

>>13633666

Kalergi Plan

Google it.

[Anonymous No.13635604]

>>13635519
>We have a collection of abstract autonomous individuals
Marxism is built off Hegel, and as such doesn't believe in the atomized liberal view of individualism.
>vanguard party in order to protect their property rights
Property rights of what? Most revolutionaries weren't rich men, or often even landowning men. People like Che traveled all of South America to fight, Lenin and Stalin both had no estate and relied on friends for housing, ect.
>except almost all revolutions have occurred with the help of a ruling elite
now this is epic
>proletarians are being deprived of the product of their labor, and thus their property
The product of their labor is not their property though, unless you are talking about mutualism - which is a form of anarchism, not communism. The product of all labor is socialized, just as the means of production are.
>form a free association of producers and distribute the social product of the collective's labor
It sounds like you are haphazardly mish-mashing two radically different left ideologies together.
>>13635493
>No, it goes back earlier.
I mean, the conceptual basis for it maybe, but liberalism as a real ideology was only really implemented in the French revolution, and proliferated from there. Capitalism proper wasn't even a thing yet, mercantilism was the prime economic mode and would continue to be until the 1880's really. I suppose you could call it proto-capitalism, but it's a stretch.
>No it isn't. Liberal society leads to capitalism. Why? Because the conception of society as a collection of abstract autonomous individuals that come together to form a government to protect property rights (which supposedly exist independently of said authority), is quintessentially liberal. Also, philosophies aren't epiphenomena of property relations.
That's assuming that the rights described by liberalism weren't there as a sort of preferential treatment to the mercantilism class as a way to get favorable treatment while in power - as most indications of early liberal ideology show. Only the rich landowners were allowed to vote, only the rich landowners could run for office, only the rich landowners could have the right of franchise, ect ect. Liberalism and capitalism emerged and evolved together out of the enlightenment and the fall of monarchies, and have always been inter-dependent. But the dominant force has always been the economic mode of capitalism, as can be seen in the relationship of the two throughout history. After all, the material base always shapes the superstructure of society, and capitalism constitutes the base.
>"Consumerism", i.e. to reject any notion of orienting society towards achieving a Good other than maximal consumption of commodities
I don't think that is what consumerism is. Consumerism is the promotion of a form of lifestyle by the capitalist class to increase profits.

[Anonymous No.13635612]

>>13635499
>, but I've refuted your point hard enough already
Sound cancerous and retarded, besides being unrealistic.
Since you can't even organize a group of friends for a self sufficient community.

[Anonymous No.13635663]

>>13633369
lmao. I went to leftypol from /lit/ as you /pol/tards won't stop spamming it

[Anonymous No.13635754]

>>13635663
Yeah? And I’ve never actually browsed /pol/ even though you try to use it to pidgeon hole me into some sort of weird ad hominem that makes my politically incorrect opinion less valid, like the illogical lefturd you are.

[Anonymous No.13635771]

TANKIES
ARE
FAGGOTS
GET
OUT
FAGGOTS

[Anonymous No.13635775]

>>13635663
>>13635754
God i would pay to see your faces anons.
I already imagine....

[Anonymous No.13635788]

>>13634659
>that quote
Has there ever been a time when this wasn't the case?

[Anonymous No.13635793]

>>13635771
Calm down

>>13635552
What does that shit have to do with leftism lmao

[Anonymous No.13635798]

>>13635788
Probably not but Hedges has kind of a bias for New Deal era America and didn't really become radical until like 2010 (before that he was pretty much just a socdem)

[Anonymous No.13635804]

>>13635510
>if you want to refute an ideology read comic books
This is the most brainlet take I have seen on this board in a while and honestly says a lot about the intellectual capacity of your average /pol/tard

[Anonymous No.13635815]

>>13635793
>Calm down
FUCK
OFF
FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.13635823]

>>13635815
Why do you hate tankies so much

[Anonymous No.13635851]

>>13635804
You're probably not all that smart if youre this ass blasted by a dumb non sequitur

[Anonymous No.13635857]

>>13635775
You’re so pathetic, while right wingers attack lefty beliefs all lefties do is try to attack the right wing individual because they can’t back up their beliefs. You’re slime.

[Anonymous No.13635882]

>>13635857
No anon, i'm a radical chick enlightened centrist unlike you inferior subhumans, both leftists and rightists are retards but i just wonder how ugly, fat and autistic you all look. Literally no healthy and good looking person irl ever gives a shit about politics.

[Anonymous No.13635885]

>>13635372
Holy shit the levels of cope a lefty is under at every moment. They just walk around coping because they’re wrong

[Anonymous No.13635889]

>>13635882
This right here is the intellect of lefties and why women are retards and shouldn’t be allowed to discuss shit

[Anonymous No.13635900]

>>13635885
some masterful reddit dialect you got there bud

[Anonymous No.13635903]

>>13635823
BECAUSE
THEY
ARE
FAGGOTS

[Anonymous No.13635905]

>>13635900
You can’t even defend that, literally everytime a lefty argues they prove they’re retarded, and when we’re lucky we get ones like that that defend their retarded lack of awareness of how the world works to the death.

[Anonymous No.13635910]

>>13635851
>I was just pretending to be retarded

[Anonymous No.13635912]

>>13635910
Bruh we had a lefty in here trying to say that capitalism keeps a workers reserve just for the benefit of making lefties right about immigration. You people are a joke.

[Anonymous No.13635913]

>>13635910
Don't ever post my image here again liberal

[Anonymous No.13635918]

>>13635905
gotta say lad, there is not much else more pathetic than shouting about how much you win after not winning

[Anonymous No.13635923]

>>13635912
Did you actually refute that or did a take on immigration other than "muh great replacement" trigger you to bad so you just screamed the word cope over and over because you were the one who needed to cope

[Anonymous No.13635925]

>>13635918
Nah fuck you, you’ll recoalesce and be back with the same retardation ready to get btfo by basic levels of thought tomorrow, in the meantime I get to rub it in and bump your retardation for all to see.

[Anonymous No.13635927]

>>13635923
I didn’t say shit about the great replacement, do lefties even read? Of course not, if they did they wouldn’t be lefties.

[Anonymous No.13635929]

>>13635925
ok buddy, just don't forget to go back to school shopping soon

[Anonymous No.13635940]

>>13635929
You are pathetic and empty headed lefty :^)

[Anonymous No.13635943]

>>13635940
:^) is an indication of sarcasm lad

[Anonymous No.13635953]

>>13635943
It’s a troll face but this reminds me of lefties tendency to correct a spelling mistake without arguing. Gotta take what you can get when your position is stupid?

[Anonymous No.13635959]

>>13635953
>troll face
dear fucking lord lad just stop, I'm fucking dying here

[Anonymous No.13635962]

>>13635959
Lefties have no position

[Anonymous No.13635968]

>>13634901
It does

[Anonymous No.13635984]

>>13634889
>Man in past with your label thought thing
>So if you don't think thing then that's a contradiction
Dumb post but ok

[Anonymous No.13635992]

>>13634901
>>13635968
Neoliberal shitheads detected. You want a real left conversation you need to tackle your really enemy, lefties with any intellect (if your exist, not like you’re able to defend immigration)

[Anonymous No.13636000]

>>13635992
are you fucking 12

[Anonymous No.13636001]

>>13635992
Reactionary is not just another word for evil you know

[Anonymous No.13636009]

>>13635992
this is embarrassing, even by rightoid standards

[Anonymous No.13636012]

>>13636001
Calling that picture reactionary shows you aren’t lefties but neoliberals. Decadent slime, leftism is your fashion politics while you support capitalism entirely.

[Anonymous No.13636015]

>>13636009
No it’s not you argumentless lefty

[Anonymous No.13636020]

>>13636001
Oh and you actually used it for another word for bad/evil because there’s literally nothing “reactionary” about that pic. I do understand it’s one of the few words in the left lexicon though so I forgive you.

[Anonymous No.13636029]

>>13632957
The american "left" became entirely composed of corporate-approved liberals thanks to the slow erosion of economic focus shifting to idpol and nonsense by corporate think tanks under neoliberalism

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13636035]

>>13634396
>You can live that way right now.
We’re talking about housing the entirety of humanity, not some loner who can get away to the woods. Banks and other assorted rich dudes claim to own all these vacant properties while an increasing number god live on the streets to die. We can’t do what I propose now without the police hassling people. I think we should do it anyway, but...
>This would eliminate one of the greates incentives to be productive
Paris Hilton totally made a tv show for herself because she wanted to earn that hotel franchise she was getting anyway. Gimme a break.

>>13634524
>Wolff, Harvey and Cockshott, to name three.
>These are not books.
Those are authors. Read their books.

Geez. Will there be a Part 2 of this highly successful thread?

[Anonymous No.13636036]

>>13636020
I mean the rhetoric of it can be spinned into a reactionary argument pretty easily if its read as these things once existed before, Especially the parts about universities and the press.

[Anonymous No.13636047]

>>13636035
>Paris Hilton totally made a tv show for herself because she wanted to earn that hotel franchise she was getting anyway.
You must be the only person who sees this depth to Paris Hilton

[Anonymous No.13636056]

>>13636036
How? Prove you’re not just using reactionary as one of your lefty shame words

[Anonymous No.13636058]

>>13635202
so what happens when those gold miners go to the same grocer as the pinecone pickers and the gold miners buy up all the food because gold is worth more than pinecones and now the grocer and the miners have an exclusive business relationship and the pinecone pickers have to go pleading to the gold miners who become the new crew bosses while all the pinecone pickers get the shit work dynamiting at the bottom of the mine???

[Anonymous No.13636064]

>>13636058
are you some kind of secret ploy to undermine the right wing by being retarded or is this earnest

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13636079]

>>13636047
It was irony, anon. She doesn’t have to do anything. She just inherits a fortune for doing nothing

[Anonymous No.13636080]

>>13636035
>Those are authors. Read their books.
Which book(s)?

[Anonymous No.13636083]

>>13636079
It was dumb, she obviously wanted to be on tv

[Anonymous No.13636092]

>>13636064
im a leftist trying to troubleshoot the ideology most in line with my own sympathies.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13636122]

>>13636080
For Wolff, I read and enjoyed Democracy at Work, you may also want to read his Contending Economic Theories, and Understanding Marxism

For Harvey, try A Brief History of Neoliberalism, or even A Companion to Marx’s Capital vol. 1 & 2

For Cockshott, I read and enjoyed Towards a New Socialism. He has others.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13636127]

>>13636083
I know. And she was obviously going to inherit her daddy’s fortunes no matter what. You you being intentionally dim?

[Anonymous No.13636138]

>>13636122
Thanks

[Anonymous No.13636145]

>>13636127
I’m just saying what you said was idiotic. A flat joke.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13636151]

>>13636145
>A flat joke.
Correct

[Anonymous No.13636427]

>peak Amerilard hours
>thread turns to shit
All the fucking time

[Anonymous No.13636431]

>>13636427
This thread appears to have been up from 10 am to midnight america time

[Anonymous No.13636449]

>>13636001
It’s a euphemism leftists use to designate the set of people for which violence can be justifiably used against in a revolutionary setting. To the leftist, a reactionary is closer to a demon than to a human.

[Anonymous No.13636491]

>>13634671
We all know which side supports self professed zionist

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13636536]

>>13636449
Naw. They are the reaction to liberal capitalism. Some when socialist, some when backwards and wanted a return to monarchy. More revolutions came and the socialists wanted to go forward, *past* capitalism, while the reactionary fell for the nation-state meme and fell in line with strongmen leader types. More capitalist crises came and the socialists had just about enough of it and wanted to break free, the. The liberals unleash their new pets, reactionary 3.0, the Fascists.

[Anonymous No.13636750]

>>13635033
It seems like it's not "leftist ideas" that create the people you describe, but rather
>people who have given up, children of the middle classes, wracked with guilt and failure who want to unload their shit on others
etc.

Why do you think the "workers of 1917" were possible, as compared to modern middle class fake-leftists that exist in the absence of such a worker movement? Hint: ideas are not the cause.

[Anonymous No.13636869]

>>13636035
>We’re talking about housing the entirety of humanity
Humanity is a spook.
>Paris Hilton totally made a tv show for herself because she wanted to earn that hotel franchise she was getting anyway. Gimme a break.
That is why i said that there are two incentives, taking care about the future wellbeing of your kids and the pursuit of social status if the individual is more on the narcissistic spectrum.

[Anonymous No.13636917]

>>13635552
>Kalergi Plan
just like the frankfurt school conspiracy theory this just shows you how right faggots don't and can't read.
that guy was a pan-European and he wanted europe to become the united states of europe and he said that non whites don't have souls

[Anonymous No.13636948]

>>13632957
>book that explains how the American left moved from working class rights to intersectional pro-capitalist feminism?
Christopher Lasch is who you're looking for. The man was a conservative marxist who attacked the post 60s left for replacing class consciousness with materialism, consumerism and narcisism.

[Anonymous No.13637039]

>>13636536
Stupidest fucking woo woo take I've ever heard

[Anonymous No.13637384]

>>13635927
still doesn't refute the reserve labour point though

[Anonymous No.13637454]

>>13636917
Right wingers think that conservative liberalism is leftism. They literally think the Republican party in the USA is leftist

[Anonymous No.13637458]

>>13636012
>>13636020
What the fuck i wasn't using as an insult at all.

[Anonymous No.13637462]

>>13637454
No they don't

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13637634]

>>13636869
So what it always boils down to with your type is that people are only motivated to hurt other people. And then you complain that life is sick.
This is what fundamentally separates the “right” and “left”. We’re trying to make life better by replacing this ancient motivation

>>13637039
>History is so woo woo stupid, zippity dingdong wooo
Take another huff

[Anonymous No.13637710]

>>13637634
>Take another huff
Of the fumes blowing out of your ass? No thanks. Any tankie who peddles the"Fascism was merely Capital's secret weapon" meme is clearly detached from reality.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.13637740]

>>13637710
Implying I’m a tanky.
The truth is fascism is just the old reactionary’s new spin. Instead of monarchy, they want a pseudo emperor, and secularism is just as often fine. But state centralized *capitalism* is their economics plan.
Obviously free market fundies don’t like them. But this is why I make the comparison that fascism is to liberal capitalists what jihadism is to Islam.
Attach to reality, lad.

[Anonymous No.13638206]

Bump

[Anonymous No.13638261]

>>13637634
>So what it always boils down to with your type is that people are only motivated to hurt other people
What are you talking about?
Do you even read the comments that you reply to?

[Anonymous No.13638325]

>>13638206
Orwell was the worst personification of the Left, more toxic than the people he is shitting on in Road to Wigan Pier desu

[Anonymous No.13638334]

>>13632957
Stephen Hick's book "explaining post modernism" makes an argument that post modern thought has been used in the west in response to the theoretical failings of classical Marxism.
It's pretty good but a lot of postmodernists really despise it, he basically says the whole philosophy is full of shit. Regardless of the real merit of postmodernism it does a good job of explaining the philosophical move by your typical lefty away from classical Marxism anand towards postmodernism

[Anonymous No.13638361]

>>13633304
Take it to /pol/ retard, not every conversation has to be about Israel.

[Anonymous No.13638376]

>>13633631
You've bitched about Jews in this thread far more than lefties bitch about white people.

[Anonymous No.13638629]

>>13635020

Best argument against leftism is that leftists are dying out due to low birthrates and conservatives have double the fertility, thus wiping out genes that predispose humans to leftism.

Check-mate atheists

[Anonymous No.13638637]

>>13638376
>>13638361

S-stop talking about jewwwssss!

[Anonymous No.13638886]

>>13632478
Is pic related any good?

[Anonymous No.13638894]

>>13635552
Kalergi literally wanted a Christian conservative Europe to colonize the whole of Africa lol.

[Anonymous No.13639271]

>>13638629
lefties have good sex, righties don't