/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18862641]

>read Marx and Engles
>agree a bit
>get on social media to talk to marxists and things I do not understand
>instead of correcting me, I am called uneducated because of my mistake
I really don't understand why does the proletariat care so much about achieving achieving education under a capitalist system when most of my class do not have access to higher education because it's too expensive for us and this is by design.

[Anonymous No.18862650]

>>18862641
Vanguardism, creating a proletarian intelligentsia is important to create and keep the communist party.

[Anonymous No.18862654]

>>18862641
Sorry that happened anon, social media people can be foul. (I'm assuming Twitter, the worst of the lot.) What did you want to know about?

[Anonymous No.18862666]

>>18862641
Higher education would turn you into a member of the overproduced managerial caste, not get you to lead a communist revolution. A proletarian uo-credenntialed into making a good salary, possibly buying property, having a 401k or other investments... suddenly you're just a low-tier capitalist; why would you want to crash the plane and destroy your retirement plan? As a member of the "educated" workforce, you'd be someone who relays decisions, opinions, and information made upstream of you to people downstream of you about which economic levers to pull to keep the population feeling invested in the current system and/or grateful to it, while thinking you were actually a force for equality, equity, or whatever it is now. Get used to it.

[Anonymous No.18862668]

>>18862641
>>instead of correcting me, I am called uneducated because of my mistake
That's because they've never read Marx, Engels or Lenin and can't handle theory. You're dealing with 110 IQ bourgeois liberals who are marxists in name only and never read more than a wikipedia tier summary on any subject within it. A real communist would send them and their families to camps.

[Anonymous No.18862689]

They couldn't answer you because they can't agree and therefore cannot provide any good reasons without devolving into infighting.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18862695]

>>18862641
>I found a nest of malcontents on the internet
>It was rough. Pat my poor bald head, gaise

State-socialism isn’t the way to go, OP
Now throw out the damn blowjacks

[Anonymous No.18862733]

>>18862641
what did you want to know?
>>18862695
why don't you just make a thread about the bread book and screech about marxism in there instead of shitting up every single marxist thread?

[Anonymous No.18862745]

>>18862733
Do you take in account biology (genes) in historical materialism?

[Anonymous No.18862777]

>>18862745
Can you be more specific? Is this a thinly veiled /pol/ question about race and IQ? I would say on the whole though that yes historical materialism does account for biology.

[Anonymous No.18862784]

>>18862695
Fucking anarchists, man. We'll surely destroy capitslism by... not having any organizational capacity whatsoever, deriding all attempts at organized force as "hierarchical," and falling coincedntally in line with every State Dept. talking point. Any day now.

[Anonymous No.18862794]

>>18862745
Historical materialism is a reductionist historicism. It might mention genes as a factor but it's essentially ruled out by its reductionism to material class dialectics. It couldn't care less about racial or genetic divisions, only class (property ownership) divisions. You're better off not subscribing to reductionist methodologies and conducting your own, broader research which doesn't limit your intellectual horizons (and this includes not being completely stuck on biological materialism as well).

[Anonymous No.18862804]

out of curiousity what part didnt you understandd?

[Anonymous No.18862809]

>>18862804
>>18862745

[Anonymous No.18862833]

>>18862794
Except the material realities of which genes continue are determined by material factors (ie, the availablity, or not, of resources according to economic factors.) No escaping the Iron Law of History my man.

[Anonymous No.18862840]

>>18862745
No. It was developed before genetics was a thing, so Marx couldn't include it, there is also no relevant research pointing to a relationship between genes in humans and success in political struggles, so no modern author took it into account as it wasn't going to matter for a theory of hidtory. Racist theories back in Marx's days never had any proof as well, so no point in including racism in the biological sense inside his theory of history. Biological evolution fits inside dialectical materialism, however, and genetics could very well be taken into account depending on what are you studying.

[Anonymous No.18862849]

>>18862833
There is no "iron law", this is dogmatic made up nonsense. If there were an iron law, Marxists would be able to predict the future, which they are not. They've been wrong in almost every prediction to date. The fact is reality is too complex for material factors to be a sufficient explanation in general.

[Anonymous No.18862869]

>>18862641
>when most of my class do not have access to higher education because it's too expensive for us and this is by design.

while I do agree with you somewhat I don't think this can be used an excuse anymore. Not in the digital age. You can get any book, free. You can learn just about anything online. There are even some good class videos from reputable universities just sitting on youtube. From like Yale, and harvard. There is no excuse.

[Anonymous No.18862882]

>>18862869
Only excuse is alienation and propaganda, but if you got here, you can pretty much study anything you want by yourself. Not that you'll become any good, btw.

[Anonymous No.18862886]

>>18862849
Marxists unironically can predict the future, Engels knew WWI would happen almost 50 years before. Wall Street gurus study this shit so they know which stocks will tank from internal contradictions, read moar.

[Anonymous No.18862888]

>>18862695
State socialism is the only thing that has proven to be effective in resisting capitalism and imperialism. Anarchism just can't provide that

[Anonymous No.18862905]

>>18862641
This is where there are a lot of cracks. Many marxists/leninists/whatever are extremely divisive and cruel people, at least superficially online. They advocate for defending nigs and rednecks who would ultimately kill them without a doubt if it came down to it. Many turn to communist ideal thinking they're the poor class (which in that case would be out of wrath, envy, "radicalized" whatever) or because of some internalized guilt over inequality. Capitalism is fucked up as shit there's no denying but these commie kids are just tryhards larping over some weird sociopolitical subculture they really don't know shit about.

[Anonymous No.18862907]

>>18862886
>Engels knew WWI would happen almost 50 years before.
So did Nietzsche. It's because everyone knew it was coming, read any history book and you'll notice this. WW1 was expected ever since Germany was united and allied with Austria-Hungary.
> Wall Street gurus study this shit
No, they don't. Wall Street "gurus" (well, the ones that actually profit from the market and aren't trying to sucker others into schemes without trading themselves) use their own brains and knowledge of calculus (usually with backgrounds in maths/stats and theoretical physics) to devise elaborate algorithms based on extremely nuanced interpretations of price patterns, as well as all other data they can get their hands on (which itself eventually changes the patterns, because of feedback loops, which is one reason why the stock market so often becomes detached from the actual state of the economy). It is essentially a statistical/mathematical art, not a philosophical one. And this is assuming they don't have access to insider knowledge (a big assumption).

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18862910]

>>18862784
Why are state-socialists so attached to capitalism?
Why don’t they even try to replace it? They have all that power, but so far, nothing. Cockshott is the only one I’ve ever seen make a serious bridge to a socialist economy.

>>18862888
It hasn’t though. It’s proven to be capitalist and imperialist.
Believe me. I’m taking a long hard look at anarchist, vanguardist and all sorts of fringe ideas to address weaknesses. We’ve made some progresses. You like what China’s become? That the tanky’s progress.

[Anonymous No.18862925]

>>18862907
All your algorithms are useless without material conditions, money monkey man. Men to chop the wood, mine the metal, dig the wells. The whole of capitalism amounts to an elaborate attempt to ignore these facts, and it's exactly as doomed as it sounds.

[Anonymous No.18862931]

>>18862745
depends to what degree. In general stuff like primitive accumulation is bound to arise independent of the genetic make-up, but (i think this is from engel origin of the family) enviromental factores can significantly alter the developement of a population as well as their genetic material for the worse. As an example, Abbos, due to the hostile enviroment they live in, the scarcity of useful land and the lack of diversity in their gene pool, quickly devolved to their retarded state which made it very easy for a non-retarded ethnic group to take over.
As a more positive example you have Europeans, which as one of the few groups that domesticated cows and, due to the readily available grazing grounds that the egyptians for example lacked, became capable to digest large amounts of lactose

[Anonymous No.18862932]

>>18862910
So when the USSR splits the world politically (and not based on resources) and when China tries to reclaim its historical territories its called imperialism. Yet when rojava acts as a US puppet in stealing and selling Syrian oil it gets a green card? China and Russia, like them or not, are the only threats to capitalism and US imperialism right now. If you don't critically support either then don't bother calling yourself a socialist

[Anonymous No.18862948]

>>18862840
>As an example, Abbos, due to the hostile enviroment they live in, the scarcity of useful land and the lack of diversity in their gene pool, quickly devolved to their retarded state which made it very easy for a non-retarded ethnic group to take over
How is that any different from race realism?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18862950]

>>18862932

[Anonymous No.18862953]

>>18862948
meant for >>18862931

[Anonymous No.18862960]

>>18862950
Your point being?

[Anonymous No.18862967]

>>18862948
more big picture, less haplomemes and skull shapes
the result is practically the same though

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18862974]

>>18862960
Czechs aren’t Russians. This isn’t even contentious… or did you not know?
Hey, I’m not comparing the two sides, but states are just imperialism waiting to happen.
Bakunin was right.

[Anonymous No.18862976]

>>18862641
In an effort to proletarianise the professions workers were briefly allowed to attend universities financially.

This incidentally smashed the traditions of workers self education.

Guess what we have to rebuild?

Also internet Marxists aren’t real Marxists. Ask them when their last strike was. (Three years ago in a sympathy strike).

[Anonymous No.18863002]

>>18862974
Bakunin was a miserable antisemite who never accomplished anythign of value, save a few scurrilous tracts. Compare to Castro, the man who single-handedly staved off apartheid in Angola, or any of the "horrible authoritarians" who killed the Tsar. Anarchism is for cod-rebellious Iowa tweens who want to spray paint "fuck da man" on their local Arby's.

[Anonymous No.18863010]

>>18862925
>All your algorithms are useless without material conditions
The point is that "material factors" are so vague and changeable as to be essentially non-entities. There is always a determining material factor for each given material factor, which means that there is never a "prime factor", and all historical materialism will simply ignore this fact and decide to focus on what it considers "most important", which is a subjective criterion, and only, at best, valid given a certain specific time and context where one factor appears subjectively greater than another. Marxism attempts to conduct a scientific and immanent metaphysics, which is, partly for the reasons just given, flawed from the beginning, because there is no determinant in time and space, everything is determined but nothing determines, and so there can be no deductive understanding of human society nor what it is predicated upon without escaping from these intellectual limitations. Even at the most basic level, humans need food and shelter to survive, but why do we need to survive? One might say it's an instinctual drive, yet there are people with an instinctual drive to die. And if one has an instinctual drive to live, what determines that drive? This might seem like it is nitpicking, but it is fundamental to historical materialism in a way because it presupposes a general human tendency, which it implicitly considers as determining rather than determined. In reality, there is no provable "material factor", there are material conditions, but they are just that: conditions. And depending on how far you want to extend the idea of what is "material", these conditions can be so broad as to virtually encompass all possibilities and put us right back at philosophical square one.

[Anonymous No.18863015]

>>18863002
Sectarianism on the internet is a sure sign you don’t organise with fellow workers.

[Anonymous No.18863031]

>>18862967
>the result is practically the same though
So why do alot of Marxist deny race realism? is this opinion a minority one?

[Anonymous No.18863038]

>>18863031
Because it's dumb and boring, and also for nerds

[Anonymous No.18863060]

>>18863031
Marxism has been practically dead in the west since at the latest the 60s but universityfags and political activists like to show off its corpse for the revolutionary aesthetic and street-cred

[Anonymous No.18863075]

>>18863060
Not marxist analysis. But the reason they don't take the biological idea of race into account is because it is not proven to have any relevance to history at all.

[Anonymous No.18863126]

>>18862974
What the fuck are you talking about? I never mentioned Czechs. If you think that USSR and China are imperialist then you might as well sign up for a job at the State Department

[Anonymous No.18863161]

>>18862695
What do you think of this video Butters?
https://youtu.be/rRXvQuE9xO4

[Anonymous No.18863169]

>>18862907
>No, they don't.
Michael Roberts is a Marxist who made big money off of Wall Street.

[Anonymous No.18863334]

>>18862641
>get on social media to talk to marxists
you talked to lib internet larpers, not Marxists

>>18862794
differentiation of genes is mostly disregarded because there's no evidence that it has impact on anything that would be much relevant. it's mostly sloppily used by a certain brand of nationalists to justify nationalism post-hoc, but since that brand of nationalism isn't even politically relevant and likely won't be, Marxists have no reason one way or another to dedicate time to this subject

>>18862886
his prediction of the Russian revolution is even better
https://marxists.architexturez.net/archive/marx/works/1853/letters/53_04_12.htm ("All this, of course, relates merely to theory...")

>>18862888
state socialism is a contradiction in terms

>>18863010
>everything is determined but nothing determines, and so there can be no deductive understanding of human society nor what it is predicated upon without escaping from these intellectual limitations
pseuds who "argue" against abstractions from the basis of some general impossibility of knowledge because they're too lazy and stupid to engage in any real world criticism (both in the sense of criticizing the concrete object and of criticizing it in concrete terms) will be executed last, so that they have enough time to on their own arrive at the realization of how they've never had a single non-empty and worthwhile thought in their entire life
>And if one has an instinctual drive to live, what determines that drive?
the fact that we have evolved by natural selection

>>18863169
Michael Roberts believes China isn't capitalist. an average neoliberal is more of a Marxist than he is

[Anonymous No.18863362]

>>18863334
>pseuds who "argue" against abstractions
I'm not arguing against abstractions, I'm plainly stating that your Marxist abstractions are demonstrably false, just as all abstractions are which attempt to reify themselves.
>they're too lazy and stupid to engage in any real world criticism
I just gave you "real world criticism", however you refuse to acknowledge it as such, because you're content to view the world from one, flawed perspective which is by no means objectively valid in any sense.
>the fact that we have evolved by natural selection
Another abstraction which has no concrete reality, just like "class warfare." The concrete mechanisms of survival, however, are not determinants but still determined, so you are still is incapable of grappling with the reality of the dilemma just put forth. Then again, I've never expected intellectual honesty or clarity from Marxists so I didn't expect you to either understand nor want to understand anything broader than your own limited and flawed perspective.

[Anonymous No.18863368]

>>18862668
A real communist would send pretty much everyone to camps

[Anonymous No.18863374]

>>18863334
>differentiation of genes is mostly disregarded because there's no evidence that it has impact on anything that would be much relevant
I think leftism in it's current form is mostly flawed because it's denial of genetics, they really think an australia abbo has the same intellectual capacity as an ashkenazi jews

[Anonymous No.18863408]

>>18862641
Friendly reminder that most of them don't understand what they've read. Modern leftists are disgusting breed who gatekeep shit they don't understand.
>inb4 'what about me' or 'that's a dumb take'
I don't know you nor do I give a fuck about whatever leftist echochamber you've been catechised through. Most likely you have a lot of things about Marxism wrong and you think state capitalism isn't a necessary development in achieving the end of international bourgeois activity.
Also fuck you if you think I'm /pol/, you're even dumber.

[Anonymous No.18863409]

>>18863374
You are the one denying genetics if you think there's any research at all that has proved a relation between genes and intelligence in healthy humans, and denying medicine as well if you think there is a proved neurological discrepancy between any ethnicity when it comes to intellectual prowess.
Meanwhile, there are a lot of others, more plausible and also proved reasons as to why an Ashkenazi would have a better academic performance than an Australian aboriginal. The simplest one being: jews generally have the money to pay for comfort, health care and tuition, while abbos generally don't.

[Anonymous No.18863432]

>>18863409
>You are the one denying genetics if you think there's any research at all that has proved a relation between genes and intelligence in healthy humans
There are, even most leftist intellectuals agree with me, the argument is of what degree it comes down to genetics.

[Anonymous No.18863434]

>>18862668
This. Most "marxists" in the western world are just turbo-liberals. You're better off not engaging with them and to just continue to read theory.

[Anonymous No.18863442]

>>18862695
waah waah muh anarchy. Stfu you guys are worst than tankies. Actually do something than shill breadtube tier takes.

[Anonymous No.18863445]

>>18862641
Those people are stupid. If you want people to follow you, you must answer their questions. No one would have behaved like this a century ago.

[Anonymous No.18863467]

>>18862641
Marxism is nothing to do with "the proletariat"; it was and always has been an intellectual cult of the middle classes. The working class have absolutely no time for philosophy. Only a detached, pampered middle class student could think in such an autistic way

[Anonymous No.18863469]

>>18863002
>Bakunin was a miserable antisemite
Nice fucking lib take. You know who else was antisemitic? Almost the entirety of the European world, dumbfuck. Also don't even assume that I'm an anarchist. Don't associate me with those fucking idiots because I'm not.
Learn to argue a point instead of spewing out insults.
And before you start bitching about me not arguing a point, remember that since you haven't made a point of any real substance there is no point for me to argue against you idiot. All I'm doing is just letting you know that you sound like a fucking idiotic liberal and that you should fucking reevaluate yourself before you go prancing around arguing in favour of marxism. You just make people who don't have their heads in their ass look stupid.

[Anonymous No.18863484]

>>18863409
>You are the one denying genetics if you think there's any research at all that has proved a relation between genes and intelligence
You are quite literally denying the existence of research which has proved (so far as science is capable of proving anything) the existence of hereditary intelligence. There are different types of IQ tests which test specifically for hereditary and acquired (environmental) intelligence levels. g is the hereditary intelligence factor, which is, in all studies to date, the most influential factor by a large margin. This is more indisputable than the difference between ethnic groups (mainly because people are afraid of the ramifications of carrying out group difference testing; it'll cause them to lose funding). But, rationally speaking and examining history, there is no reason to think that, given intelligence is largely hereditary and genetic, that genes related to intelligence wouldn't clump up in certain groups based on environmental differences (the same thing has happened between animal species separated by environment, why not humans? Why are humans special?) This difference in group intelligences would also be responsible for class differentiation, which would be important for Marxist analysis, because higher intelligence allows for greater complexity of social and economic relations. There would also be a tendency for the upper classes to be well-bred and more intelligent, thus enabling them to first gain supremacy, and maintain it over the less intelligent lower classes.

[Anonymous No.18863500]

Somewhat related to you OP, does anyone have good ideas why internet marxists are sectarian to the point of belligerent hyperindividualism? The general sentiment seems to be:

>MY reading is the right one, EVERYONE ELSE is a dumbfuck knuckeldragger who completely missed the point

Case in point: >>18863408, >>18862668, >>18862695, >>18862784, etc.

Seems paradoxical that the end-result of closely studying and caring about collectivist ideology is the sort of ideological solipsism that not even hardcore lolbertarians can maintain. One might even call it - dare I say it? - a performative contradiction.

[Anonymous No.18863505]

>>18863126
>If you think that USSR and China are imperialist then you might as well sign up for a job at the State Department
>imperialism is when capitalism
>reed lenin
shut up you fucking autist. That take makes everyone laugh at you besides other tankie retards.
Invading sovereign nations in order to gain influence over them is imperialism. China building military bases abroad is imperialism. The National Security Law violating HK's freedom is imperialism. Erasure of Tibetan religion is imperialism. Claiming international waters because of some fucking map is imperialism. China making deals with the Taliban in order to mine fucking copper is imperialism. That's working with an inherently oppressive system in order to create capital gain.
If you honestly don't think any of that is imperialism then you maybe the dumbest fucking idiot I've interacted with tonight. Seriously, tell me how invading sovereign independent nations, destruction of local cultures, debt trapping nations, violating the borders of other nations, violating a nations sovereignty, and constructing military bases all in order to make some money is not imperialistic? Please fucking enlighten me.

[Anonymous No.18863522]

>>18863500
>Seems paradoxical that the end-result of closely studying and caring about collectivist ideology is the sort of ideological solipsism that not even hardcore lolbertarians can maintain. One might even call it - dare I say it? - a performative contradiction.
shut the fuck up you semantical anglo cocksucker. You can go to any college and ask almost any self described "Marxist" what communism is and they'll all give different and wrong answers. And nice one on calling me a marxist, you dumb fuck. You really nailed that one, you fucking dumbass. If you had any critical thinking and ability to reason you'd see that my claims actually coincided with yours. That the majority of marxists have no idea what they're talking about. And that they receive most of their education from various leftist echochambers. But of course some fucking spiritually anglo jackass like you, thought he was going to form some smug and wise response in order to inform op. Give a real answer next time someone asks a question instead of some pseud reply. Fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.18863528]

>>18863522
cope seethe dilate

[Anonymous No.18863560]

>>18863528
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.18863609]

>>18862641
This is the ultimate irony of Marxism. For people who believe so much that the true causes of history are material they sure do spend a lot of their time (for people that don’t believe in the power of ideas) arguing over ideas on the internet and persecuting their own people. Marxists are hypocritical fucking idiots and they lose arguments as quickly as they try to argue them

[Anonymous No.18863613]

>>18863500
This is correct.
>be Marxist
>believe in material causes and collectivist institution
>yet spend 100% of my time in the fantasy world of ideas and arguing with people that believe the same thing I do

[Anonymous No.18863628]

>>18863613
>people that spend 100% of their time in the fantasy land of ideas arguing with everyone
You just described the Marxist utopia. They would precum reading the very sentences that reveal them as hypocrites

[Anonymous No.18863645]

>>18862650
That is just a state or upper class lmao

[Anonymous No.18863648]

>>18863645
Yes he’s a cunt but actually read Lenin in party debates 1912-1916 on leading workers (good) versus actual Bolshevik party membership (no workers).

Actually read some history of the Bolshevik party in practice. No not the short course.

[Anonymous No.18863662]

>>18862641
The end effect of marxism is increased in-fighting and exacerbation of discontent to brain melting levels.

[Anonymous No.18863669]

>>18863500
>MY reading is the right one, EVERYONE ELSE is a dumbfuck knuckeldragger who completely missed the point
That sounds like religion. I noticed many similarities between religion cults and communism years ago.

[Anonymous No.18863675]

>>18863669
You ever organise a strike son?

[Anonymous No.18863679]

>>18862695
>Now throw out the damn blowjacks
Why are all anarchists so authoritarian?

[Anonymous No.18863752]

>>18863675
Yeah and it didn’t result in me getting shot in the back of the head by my own people thankfully

[Anonymous No.18863756]

>>18863752
In that case just yell praxis at these pricks until they go back to days of our parties lives and talk about actual labour history with your coworkers. Never trust anyone who doesn’t know Condition 1844 or the major labour history of their terrain.

[Anonymous No.18863800]

>>18863756
>read history to get a sense of how things go
literally who disagrees with this? any staunchly anti-Marxists historians, for example Barzun (dedicated barely a page to Marx in his 1k page cultural historical opus) that I’ve read believe this as well. What you’re saying is not at all incommensurate with modern capitalism

[Anonymous No.18863810]

>>18862666
So communism relies on useful idiots. Neat.

[Anonymous No.18863811]

>>18862784
>Destory capitalism
>Anarchist
Why? Anarchists should love private property

[Anonymous No.18863820]

>>18863002
>Compare to Castro, the man who single-handedly staved off apartheid in Angola, or any of the "horrible authoritarians" who killed the Tsar. Anarchism is for cod-rebellious Iowa tweens who want to spray paint "fuck da man" on their local Arby's.
>Anarchism is about having fun and enjoying life
>Communism is about shilling the personality cult of dead dictators, for free, on an internet basket waving board
Yeah, I'm thinking Anarchism is better than Communism

[Anonymous No.18863821]

>>18863800
Did you miss the bit where I suggest you develop collective self interested class solidarity by reading and acting?

[Anonymous No.18863825]

>>18862910
Your entire system is impractical. Point-in-case: CHAZ

[Anonymous No.18863830]

>>18862886
>Engels
Nigga, Nietzsche predicted that and the cold war. What is your point?

[Anonymous No.18863844]

>>18862650
Vanguardism is a huge huge cope to the reality that "class consciousness" doesn't really exist and no amount of propaganda can make it exist, so the ideologues need to take the reins themselves

[Anonymous No.18863857]

>>18863821
I didn’t write that original post but he should be asking your question to Marxists. Why you’re asking him is a mystery. Why would he do that if he thought communism was a religious cult? And if only my reading showed me any examples of Marxists not shooting themselves in the their oxymoronic heads filled with material fantasy - if only we lived in a world where this wasn’t already happening without your failed grand narrative.

You ought to be organising a strike instead of arguing on 4chan if all you really believe in is the material causes of events and not the power of mere words

[Anonymous No.18863896]

>>18863857
>organizing a strike
That's reformism - marx wasn't for that

[Anonymous No.18863926]

>>18863857
Reformism in the imperial core i.g. the United States and Europe is counter-revolutionary. You're just siphoning more profits from colonized people in the Global South that have to work in sweatshops to give you your quality of life. You shouldn't be striking i.g. improving the conditions of a labor aristocracy. Communists that fetish "strikes" aren't communists, but petty bourgeois radicals who aren't workers, but fear proloterianization. Land bank, reparations, and decolonization come first before the profits of settlers.

[Anonymous No.18863927]

>>18863896
http://homepages.gac.edu/~kranking/DigitalHistory/HIS321/HIS_321/Karl_Marx.htmBut let’s ignore that anyway,
>I suggest you develop collective self interest class solidarity by reading and acting
So you’re asking an anon that thinks communism is a cult why he isn’t organising a strike… to point out to him that he should be studying the history of labour and acting… but you’re against strikes…

this is peak Marxism right here

[Anonymous No.18863939]

>>18863927
No, see >>18863926
Also, socialism is the abolition of wage labor. Marx was against syndicalism. Marxism is revolutionary, it calls for the seizure of the means of production by the workers; which would abolish them as a class. Striking doesn't do that - that's the trade union consciousness Lenin attacked anarchists for having, along with reformists like you, in the State and Revolution

[Anonymous No.18863954]

>>18863926
>You're just siphoning more profits from colonized people in the Global South that have to work in sweatshops to give you your quality of life. You shouldn't be striking i.g. improving the conditions of a labor aristocracy
And your solution to this problem, once again, is? “Reading and acting”?

[Anonymous No.18863965]

>>18863954
I'm not a marxist. I'm pointing out that you're both wrong. Marxism requires violence. It requires you giving your life to the cause. The foundations of capitalism, and all previous societies, has been through violence. Communism, another stage of society, requires it as a result since no system goes down with a fight. Organizing a strike isn't going to cut it.

[Anonymous No.18863975]

>>18863965
What is this 'capitalism' you speak of?

[Anonymous No.18863994]

>>18863975
Capitalism is a system where means of production was privately owned, and the majority of the wealth generated are by wage workers - generalized commodity production. That's the system that dominates the Earth. Marx's goal, to solve the immersation was for the workers to seize means of production themselves. This would abolish them, as a class, since they would no longer have to sell their labor power to survive. Instead, with the ownership of the means of production, they could produce goods according to their needs. Worker ownership means the workers decide what is produced, not the market as we see under capitalism.

[Anonymous No.18864006]

>>18863939
So I’m supposed increase my own class consciousness by reading history (none of which has any productive examples illustrating the seizing the means of production?) which will help bolster my belief in this basically revolutionary material revolt while in the meantime I forgo any material attempts to reform the system…

anon do you accept that your revolt is likely not to work? and the next one? and possibly all of them? who is to say but those with blind faith in dialectics?

[Anonymous No.18864008]

>>18863994
Incredibly vague but that's to be expected
>means of production was privately owned
What is 'private ownership'?
I

[Anonymous No.18864014]

>>18863965
Wrong about what? He called it a religious cult and that’s what I’m defending. it is very much is. You are literally describing a bunch of people that you say ought to sit and read more with blind faith that a big restoring change is going to eventually come, what does that sound like?

[Anonymous No.18864021]

>>18863994
>Worker ownership means the workers decide what is produced
So, political anarchism?

[Anonymous No.18864034]

>>18864006
I suggest you just stop being a Marxist
>class consciousness
"Class" doesn't even exist; its just ontological classification by Marxoids
>>18864008
To Marxists, private ownership is the ownership of property used to produce a profit
>>18864014
You're so fucking retarded you think you're talking to the same person. Being a Marxist, or caring about Marxism in the first place, is your problem. Just stop caring about "muh workers", and learn how to take care of yourself.

[Anonymous No.18864047]

>>18864021
Anarchism is nihilistic - its more like Zen or Taoism or Post Leftism. Anarcho-Communism is the bastardization of Anarchism; it was a merger of Anarchist theory with "Communism." Basically, with the non-sense of Proudhon and Bakuninists

[Anonymous No.18864052]

>>18864034
>You're so fucking retarded you think you're talking to the same person.
Anon this is a sign that you are retarded. You join an argument to argue a point nobody in the argument gives a fuck about, just to say “who gives a fuck about this”? Are you serious?

[Anonymous No.18864054]

>>18864034
>To Marxists, private ownership is the ownership of property used to produce a profit
I get you are not a marxist and I shouldn't really be arguing with you considering I agree with you. But that sounds idiotic. Is surplus not also profit and always considered good? Pointless question I know

[Anonymous No.18864059]

>>18864047
Is communism not described ain an oxymoronic way as a "stateless classless society"?

[Anonymous No.18864070]

>>18864034
>class doesn’t exist
And Yes I was quoting the Marxist guy I was talking to. I have no idea why you think I’m a Marxist

[Anonymous No.18864086]

>>18862650
so an elite then.
thanks for confirming this ideology is a bucket of piss for retards to drink from

[Anonymous No.18864105]

>>18864059
The term "stateless society" is oxymoron, so, yeah. Anarchism is not an ideology for societal planning. Its the negation of all social contracts. To Anarchists, ideas themselves are hierarchical. They simply don't want to be told what to do. They are rustics, wanderers, hermits, the petty thief & criminal - they do whatever they please with the power they have. Self development and personal achievement, by any means, is the goal.
>>18864054
Marxism is solipsistic in a lot of ways. If you buy Marx's arguments, its true, but there plenty of ways to describe "capitalism" or even "socialism" (earliest mentions of socialism come from Plato). If you don't agree with socialism - you don't have to. You just don't have to care what he said or any philosopher said. Its your life after all. Marxists have this tendency into guillotining you into being what they want you to be. Just say no.
>>18864052
Read the OP, dumbass. Dude wants to be a marxoid. I'm telling him not to be one. He doesn't have an anarchist, a marxoid, or any of the fucking retarded political non-sense on twitter. The whole point of philosophy is to figure what should you do with your time here. You have very picky. Clearly, anyone who knows history knows examining Marxism is not a useful product of your time. If you're old enough to be on 4chan; you're old enough to know what you need in life. No one needs to tell you.

[Anonymous No.18864106]

>>18862650
Could someone explain to me how this isn't just calling classes by a different name?

[Anonymous No.18864119]

>>18864106
The entire theory of communism is based on suspension of disbelief over an abyss of cognitive dissonance.
It's more like a mental circus act than anything; which explains why the movement is filled with clowns and bearded ladies.

[Anonymous No.18864129]

>>18864119
I have a biases towards it, but i would actually like some Marxist books recommended to me. Please don't recommend me boring trash

[Anonymous No.18864167]

>>18864105
>guy1 asks why Marxism is so sectarian
>guy2 responds it sounds like religion
>guy3 responds asking if he’s ever organised a strike
>I try to explain how that response makes no sense
>you start replying to ME in this chain, not the Marxoid, about how strikes are anti-Marxist, and about how you were replying to the Marxoid that he shouldn’t be one, when I agree with you because that’s exactly what I’m arguing
>I’m the dumbass
are you sure you’re not a Marxist?

[Anonymous No.18864176]

>>18864167
Seek help

[Anonymous No.18864184]

>>18864176
Oh wait are you THAT guy? We all think the same thing about you

[Anonymous No.18864200]

>>18864176
Not the anon you replied to but this kind of gaslighting reply seems strangely common in /leftypol/ tourist threads. Are you a tranny? Honest question. Why not just reply to him honestly?

[Anonymous No.18864203]

>>18864184
I regret to inform you that your above post makes absolute zero sense. To you I'm sure it makes perfect sense, but it does not.
This is the problem with you solipsistic collectivists. Your brains are wired into a paradox.

[Anonymous No.18864212]

>>18864203
Again I’m not a Marxist, I’ve been arguing the opposite. This anon was spot on though >>18864200

You are free to read the reply chain and tell me where I was being “solipsistically collectivist”, though, when that was the opposite of what I’ve been saying

[Anonymous No.18864227]

>>18863362
>I'm not arguing against abstractions
>I'm plainly stating that your Marxist abstractions...
pick one
and they are neither mine nor Marxist. you're too lazy to criticize "Marxist" anything, because that would require an actual investigation of the content of Marxism.
>I just gave you "real world criticism"
no, you gave a pseudo-criticism of nothing in particular. you couldn't have criticized any real content, because the object you invented in order to criticize it is empty abstraction. that way you did zero work but you can still pretend like you have actually made criticism
>Another abstraction which has no concrete reality, just like "class warfare." The concrete mechanisms of survival, however, are not determinants but still determined
another empty criticism that doesn't address the real object at all and instead appeals to some retarded attempt at epistemological nihilism.
if you can criticize everything in the exact same way, then you're not criticizing anything in particular.

>>18863374
intellectual capacity to do what? and besides, you'd still need a huge leap from the existence of difference in some capacity between groups to its attribution to genetic necessity, and then another huge leap to show that it had such a great scale effects that it determined the broad historical process

>>18863467
>Marxism is nothing to do with "the proletariat"
the proletariat was of necessity pushed into a movement against the current state of things, and the body of knowledge that arose from and around the investigation of this necessity is what's called Marxism. so the two are very much connected

>>18863484
>This difference in group intelligences would also be responsible for class differentiation
most importantly, class differentiation happened a lot within groups. and where it happened through one group imposing itself on another, the groups weren't separated nearly enough for one to have magically evolved a sort of intellectual advantage that would have a real effect. such cases can be explained perfectly well by purely environmental differences, e.g. warrior nomads tending to have military superiority over frail agricultural communities just because of the way they need to live.

>>18863500
the disagreement has nothing to do with any sectarian individualism. it's caused by the fact that its object is:
1) objective, and not a matter of equivalent subjective opinions
2) very complex, and there isn't a way to, e.g., perform clear cut, isolated empirical tests that would straightforwardly and immediately refute some positions
3) politically relevant in a way that an enormous amount of effort is dedicated not to investigating it, but rather to using the pretense of investigating it in order to muddy the waters and enforce diverse middle class and bourgeois interests

>>18863844
class consciousness does exist and it manifests itself in the communist party

>>18864008
private ownership is a section of society having control over given objects

[Anonymous No.18864237]

>>18864212
you wrote CRAP my friend. CRAP. crap, no matter how many times read, is still CRAP. would it be better if I rubbed your nose in it? perhaps then you'd learn not to leave turds in the middle of a thread.
bad boy. BAD boy.

[Anonymous No.18864243]

>>18864227
>if you can criticize everything in the exact same way, then you're not criticizing anything in particular.
Not everything, only pseudo-metaphysical theories that encourage epistemic nihilism, like Marxism. Not very bright are you. Looks like you've almost reached the point where you understand the problem with Marxism.

[Anonymous No.18864246]

>>18864237
any direction away from you is the same thing as “seeking help”

[Anonymous No.18864250]

>>18864243
>Not everything
yes everything. I can sit here and reply "well this is also determined" like a dumb retard to everything

[Anonymous No.18864266]

>>18864227
>ITS OBJECTIVE
>but uhhh we cant actually prove it empirically

[Anonymous No.18864269]

>>18864227
>the groups weren't separated nearly enough for one to have magically evolved a sort of intellectual advantage that would have a real effect.
You're outright lying here (or just ignorant), because it's factually established that Aryan invaders (who were the first to establish hierarchical societies via external conquest and a harsh life in the steppes) were in fact differentiated from the start. Humanity has never been "one big puddle", like Engels falsely claimed after his fabricated, dilettantish study of human history. Try reading some actual history (you know, researched by actual academic historians and not ideologues) sometime instead of Marxist propaganda. The lower classes were always the masses who were conquered by the superior races which originated from geographically foreign regions (even the study of India itself in recent history, ignoring/after the Aryan invasions, evidences this).

[Anonymous No.18864275]

>>18864250
No, only theories which try to impute knowable causes into phenomenal reality. Philosophical investigations which do not claim to know determinants in phenomenal reality are all exempted from the critique I just gave. Marxism has virtually no epistemological foundation to sit on, and so it is pure epistemic nihilism when it is unraveled. The same goes for all "scientific metaphysics" and historicisms, Hegel included.

[Anonymous No.18864305]

>>18864275
way to unpack the problem but you forgot to say 'bucko'

[Anonymous No.18864365]

>>18863505
>HKs freedom
They're a fucking Chinese city. China is integrating it back into the Mainland after over 150 years of British colonial rule. How can you possibly be this retarded? Anti-China leftists are the perfect useful idiots for the West, I swear.

[Anonymous No.18864418]

>>18864365
Why would a leftist support chinks? CCP is nationalist; they don't give a fuck about western workers or even their own workers. Workers in China have no right to strike, join a union, and they even largely wealth inequality than the United States. " Imagine being a useful fucking idiot for Marxist-Leninists - you're like Malcolm Cadwell.

[Anonymous No.18864427]

>>18862641
Perfect sketch for the twitter left: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDQXFNWuZj8

We need a less shitty presence online as leftists, I totally agree.

>>18862650
Vanguardism is shit, for the left to have any success against the reactionaries we have to be rhizomatic.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.18864441]

>>18863825
>A temporary autonomous zone is impractical

>>18863679
Being disgusted with blowjacks is authoritarian

[Anonymous No.18864443]

>>18864227
(nta)
>intellectual capacity to do what?
One (1) of MANY examples, would be technology, which abbos have not produced, due to their large amount of non-human dna.
>class differentiation happened a lot within groups.
due to genetics
>the groups weren't separated nearly enough for one to have magically evolved
>magically evolved
It didn't "magically evolve", it happened due to different climatic (such as harsh winters) and geographic (mountains) conditions which create a higher amount of natural selection. In such situations (which happened through praticaly ALL of human history; especially in Europe), intelligence and physical fitness were selected to fight off and endure such conditions. Your attempt at downplaying genetics is, hitherto, laughable.

>class consciousness does exist
In like what, less than 20% of the "proletariat"? And only a few have a will to power.
>and it manifests itself in the communist party
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

[Anonymous No.18864476]

>>18864105
That's not how you use a semi-colon

[Anonymous No.18864489]

>>18864227
Its never "real Marxism" because its always an exercise in solipsism with you retards. You guys dozens of little cults, and sects, that fight over Marx's words.

[Anonymous No.18864522]

>>18864237
You have to be 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.18864527]

>>18864522
not mentally you dont
otherwise how do you explain all the marxists ITT

[Anonymous No.18864593]

>>18864266
yes. the fact that we currently can't grow a society in a lab doesn't preclude there being necessary laws governing societies when they're arranged in particular ways and put in particular circumstances

>>18864269
>You're outright lying here (or just ignorant), because it's factually established that Aryan invaders... were in fact differentiated from the start.
I like how you accused me of lying and then in the same sentence you very consciously shifted "a sort of intellectual advantage that would have a real effect" into some vague "differentiation". no shit they were "differentiated".
>Try reading some actual history (you know, researched by actual academic historians and not ideologues)... The lower classes were always the masses who were conquered by the superior races
which "actual academic historians and not ideologues" can I read on the subject of genetically superior races?

>>18864275
>No, only theories which try to impute knowable causes into phenomenal reality.
yeah, so everything that aims at any concrete knowledge of reality

>>18864443
>technology, which abbos have not produced, due to their large amount of non-human dna
how do you even know that this is the reason?
>>class differentiation happened a lot within groups.
>due to genetics
you just claimed differentiation between groups. you can't afford to have both. to try to make room for this in the spectrum, you would have to make the ingroup differences even smaller and even less likely to have had any effect.
>It didn't "magically evolve", it happened due to different climatic (such as harsh winters) and geographic (mountains) conditions which create a higher amount of natural selection.
it would definitely require magic in such time frames. and especially within groups. how does that work? does one person live 10 years up a mountain which makes them super smart compared to the person who stays 500 meters below?
>Your attempt at downplaying genetics is, hitherto, laughable.
sounds like I'm doing well then, because you aren't coherent enough with your blatant self-contradictions to even be funny, let alone present a compelling argument.

>>18864443
>In like what, less than 20% of the "proletariat"?
of course. in the current counter-revolutionary situation it's much less, but even in the eve of the revolution it possibly won't be much more than 20%. you simply don't need that large of a section of the class to be politically active in order for the class party to play a decisive role. and the influx of last-minute revolutionaries will have to be controlled somewhat so that it doesn't lead to the party's degeneration at the first downturn, which will additionally limit the membership.
you sound like you fetishize democracy to such a degree that you believe it's literal statistical majorities that make history. in reality, most people simply go where the wind takes them, and if a class has history on its side, you only need an advanced minority to make wind blow

[Anonymous No.18864724]

>>18864593
>how do you even know that this is the reason?
what else would you give? for example:
>The mean IQ for Australian Aborigines, given in The Global Bell Curve (Richard Lynn) is 62.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-IQ-of-Australian-Aboriginals
>you can't afford to have both
Of course I can. There are differences between a group and among groups; these have variable differences, but they do exist.
>one person live 10 years
You're creating a scenario which I wasn't describing: we're talking about multiple generations within a given enviroment which shape an ethnic. It goes from such trivialities like the amount of melanin you have, to important things like intelligence and physical capabality.
>you sound like you fetishize democracy
I'm anti-democracy. You're the one who fetishizes the rabble, believing they'll create a political structure which most of the "proletariat" doesn't even want or know it exists
>inb4 they don't have to know
then you aren't really fighting for their true interests.

Quite honestly, this is tedious; I'll be reading the Upanishads. Cya later fag.

[Anonymous No.18864807]

>>18862650
Avant-guarders were always champagne socialists and bored people.

[Anonymous No.18864901]

>>18862905
>they advocate for defending rednecks
I have never seen an internet marxist do anything but disparage rednecks as "dumb hicks too stupid to know what's best for them".

[Anonymous No.18865055]

>>18863368
Kek

[Anonymous No.18865068]

>>18863500
Under real Marxism trump voters largely comprise the proletariat and would in fact be in charge following a revolution. Historical materialism and class struggle don't care about your done pseudoleft. Can't want till MAGA cletus is installed as a commissar.

[Anonymous No.18865069]

>>18864724
>what else would you give? for example:
I asked for the evidence that 1) their lack of technological development is due to their low intelligence and 2) that this low intelligence is genetic. you deflected and gave me neither of those, only evidence that they have low intelligence.
>Of course I can. There are differences between a group and among groups
any significant difference within groups would reduce the room for a significant difference between groups, and vice versa. and you desperately need that room, because you need to argue that the differences are so significant that they have historical impact, and you clearly have problems with that as evidenced the above deflection
>we're talking about multiple generations within a given enviroment which shape an ethnic
an ethnic? my example was supposed to refer to ingroup differences. it sounds retarded mostly because due to the thesis it attempts to reflect. you seem to meander between ingroup and intergroup according to which one gives you the best chances of salvaging something rhetorically at any given moment.
>I'm anti-democracy.
I wasn't talking referring to your beliefs about yourself but about the presuppositions you operate under
>You're the one who fetishizes the rabble, believing they'll create a political structure which most of the "proletariat" doesn't even want or know it exists
except I just stated to you how the "rabble" will only follow a class-conscious minority. and not even in its entirety: a lot will be too busy focusing solely on trying to survive the crisis.
>>inb4 they don't have to know
>then you aren't really fighting for their true interests.
contrary to what the democracy fetishist believes, the interests of a class don't lie in what the majority of it momentarily believes. Marx:
>It is not a question of what this or that proletarian, or even the whole proletariat, at the moment regards as its aim. It is a question of what the proletariat is, and what, according to this being, it will historically be compelled to do.
in fact, most of the proletariat will as a general rule support the bourgeois regime, for the simple reason that the ruling ideology is the ideology of the ruling class.

[Anonymous No.18865224]

>>18865069
>1)
It's logical; but I'm sure there are studies, if that's your thing. Every other group with an IQ over 95 has produced their own technology. Sub-Saharan Africans and Native Australians, who do not go, on average, beyond 70 of IQ, are the only "humans" on this planet which have not made them.
>2) low intelligence is genetic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
>Various studies have found the heritability of IQ to be between 0.7 and 0.8 in adults and 0.45 in childhood
Praticaly EVERY trait of an "individual" is derived from their parents and community (kin), why would there be an exception to intelligence.
>an ethnic?
an ethnic group, typo.
>my example was supposed to refer to ingroup differences.
still don't see how this is a refutation that genetics are one the most important parts in the shaping of (especially) pre-modern hierarchical societies.
>the "rabble" will only follow a class-conscious minority.
the meek follow whoever gives them bread; most of the time not even that. I think we agree on this
the rest is: "marx said x". I DON'T CARE, Workers hate you and won't follow you.

[Anonymous No.18865974]

>>18862650
Reminder that Karl Kautsky (compiler of Das Kapital volume 4), and Rosa Luxembourg, were very critical of vanguardism.
>>18862641
>get on social media
Maybe your mistake is not reading Marx, but going on social medias. Most of Marxist concepts are on english wikipedia, and it's well done.

[Anonymous No.18865998]

>>18862888
>Anarchism just can't resist to Capitalism and imperialism.
Of course, everytime they've tried, they got killed. See Nestor Makhno. Or the POUM! (Georges Orwell) during revolutionary catalonia.

[Anonymous No.18866009]

>>18863060
Yet it's still here, and people still read Marx. Go figure.

[Anonymous No.18866096]

>>18865224
>It's logical
it's not enough for something to be logically sound for it to be actually likely
>Every other group with an IQ over 95 has produced their own technology
your "every group with an IQ over 95" seems to be a codeword for the societies in Europe/Middle-East/Far East which have been in contact for a long time and which spurred technological development; your "beyond 70 of IQ" -- for groups which were cut off either by a desert or by an ocean and lacked any external stimulus for such development, and the advantage of extensive contact with others.
compared to the technology developed by Western Europeans and exported everywhere, all other geographical groups might as well all be said to not have developed any at all. the differences between them are insignificant.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
"The scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups."
ok
>Praticaly EVERY trait of an "individual" is derived from their parents and community (kin), why would there be an exception to intelligence.
it's derived in significant part due to shared environment. if you account for changing environment and multiple generations, the genetic influence becomes negligible
>still don't see how this is a refutation that genetics are one the most important parts in the shaping of (especially) pre-modern hierarchical societies
my point there was that human evolution doesn't happen on the timeframes required for hierarchy based on genetic intelligence to develop within a group, not even close.
>the rest is: "marx said x".
you're genuinely retarded. I can definitely see where the IQ cope comes from

[Anonymous No.18866181]

>>18865224
>>18866096
*Europe/Middle-East/Far East, which have been in contact for a long time, a fact that spurred technological development

and the initial impulse was the fertility in the Fertile Crescent, North China Plain, Indus River Valley, the Nile, and later, due to climatic warming, in the entire Mediterranean. the land quality and the isolation of Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia created diametrically different conditions

[Anonymous No.18866221]

>>18866096
blah blah blah, you're a faggot
>which spurred technological development
BECAUSE THEY WERE INTELLIGENT AND HAD THE ENVIROMENT TO DO TECHNOLOGY, not because of le ebic trade
>cut off either by a desert or by an ocean
Arabs interated with the blacks; The abbos burned down there own trees due to stupidity (scholium: did you know that abbos still sniff petrol, despite the health warnings?)
>ok
I'll accept the concession
>The scientific consensus
not the first time the paradigm is wrong, see vid
>multiple generations, the genetic influence becomes negligible
no
>human evolution doesn't happen on the timeframes required for hierarchy based on genetic intelligence to develop within a group
And I was talking about genetics, not just intelligence. Also, I never claimed there was "evolution" within this timeframe (although there are examples of species separating into subspecies within a 12000 year timeframe; e.g. Laudakia stellio), merely natural selection, which creates the antithesis strong-weak.

[Anonymous No.18866273]

>>18864365
Violating an agreement is violating their sovereignty you fucking retard. Only yellow fever of the most extreme can cause you to be so fucking utterly stupid. Also nice on not addressing any of my other criticisms because you fucking can't, you dumb ass.

[Anonymous No.18866742]

>>18866221
>BECAUSE THEY WERE INTELLIGENT AND HAD THE ENVIROMENT TO DO TECHNOLOGY
because they were pushed by the environment, by extensive contact, by competition, by agricultural surplus and large population due to the soil and the climate
>Arabs interated with the blacks
the point is that contact was very sporadic at most in comparison e.g. with the mediterranean.
>I'll accept the concession
you already conceded everything by linking an article which refutes your basic claim as directly as humanly possible
>not the first time the paradigm is wrong, see vid
until new evidence arises, I'll take the consensus over a geriatric patient
>I never claimed there was "evolution" within this timeframe... merely natural selection
kek

[Anonymous No.18866790]

>>18866221
>>18866742
and one more important point regarding the contact with the arabs: it simply came too late. it enabled, for example, the development of the Swahili culture with its urban centers, but a few centuries later the Portuguese were already there with their fleets, taking over trade, which lead to the collapse of any independent development

[Anonymous No.18867561]

>>18862666
>666
>just perpetuate the system
>mind your own biz

[Anonymous No.18867572]

>>18862886
Dostoevsky and Nietzsche could also predict the future, they knew what Communism would develop into.

[Anonymous No.18867625]

>>18863505
It's just Chinese users who deny that man, let it be.
They're having back-breaking Capitalism and they think they are the vanguard of global pure Communism.

[Anonymous No.18867649]

>>18863409
This is true from my readings, when age, income and sometimes more data like brain scans are controlled for, the averages are identical.
But a big mass of a fucked up ethnic group or community is still a problem.

[Anonymous No.18867653]

>>18863484
>g is the hereditary intelligence factor, which is, in all studies to date, the most influential factor by a large margin
40-60% is the range of heredity for that, so it's a coin-flip.

[Anonymous No.18867697]

>>18862654
stfu you filthy commie

[Anonymous No.18867710]

>>18864200
It's also what Twitch/Reddit, generally underage, tourists do m8.