Hi, Holla Forums here.
Why should I abandon leftist politics and move over to the right side, or at least that's what many people visiting Holla Forums want us to do. What am I to gain from your position that I can't already archive on the left?
Pic unrelated. Would still like a nice and friendly discussion, if possible.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
ab
libcom.org
www
archive.is
archive.is
jewishquarterly.org
en.wikipedia.org
marxists.org
sinistra.net
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
libcom.org
libcom.org
marxists.org
sinistra.net
sinistra.net
libcom.org
libcom.org
libcom.org
marxisthumanistinitiative.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
sinistra.net
quinterna.org
quinterna.org
sinistra.net
sinistra.net
quinterna.org
quinterna.org
8ch.net
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
www
dailymail.co.uk
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
libcom.org
8ch.net
youtube.com
youtube.com
archive.is
archive.is
marxists.org
users.wfu.edu
dreamscape.com
eprints.gla.ac.uk
twitter.com
You won't be such a giant faggot any longer.
A white ethno-state.
Why should I want this?
You won't be such a giant faggot any longer.
Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
Because it's the best possible direction for humanity
You need to go down the NatSoc hole and find out why.
Explain or meme on.
In addition to we already have nazbols for that.
Idk, fam. Guess it's a mystery.
Most Ethnic Nationalists aren't "Right-wing" as the media portrays but rather indepdentend of the traditional binary scale. While they may fit on the Politcal Compass, it is moot. Pierce's National Alliance was in fact very moderate. By using the term "lefty" you are using your own enemy's (porky) terminology against you. It's one of the reasons we don't like the Alt-Right. A minor reason, of course, but a point nonetheless.
Why move from one extreme to the next?
You'll be the same piece of shit, just preaching different values
...
Because egalitarianism is a myth and you need to get over it.
...
...
It's telling that OP thinks in terms of personal gain instead if morals or convictions. Good insight into the mind of a geny faggot.
Against my better judgment, I'll bite.
Leftism gives power to a bureaucracy that passes the buck in a circle. Their is no incentive for anyone to care about one another more than they signal that they care about ideals. This is why leftists will claim to care about the downtrodden, and do absolutely nothing to help. Even worse, because leaders are viewed as ideological failures if they take accountability, once again, because leftism values ideals more than people, they often enslave economically (welfare) or outright murder (communism) the downtrodden and poor for their own benefit.
In a right wing society, self accountability is central to achieving any form of social status. This is why early great empires are right wing. In early Rome, it was impossible to advance in society without virtus, a concept you can jewgle if you like. Caring about your fellow man is something you are incentivized to do, not just incentivized to pretend to do.
Now fuck off back to leftypol.
Leftists don't like any of these things though.
Why should this be in opposition to leftism? We want to abolish the reasons for refugees to leave their homes, making the whole world safe, not just one spot.
I don't mind what people are called, I just used the term to give people an abstract idea from which position I'm coming from.
I'm not extreme, in fact I'm very modest - I just want communism :^)
Do you mean "egalitarianism" in the sense that people should be given the same rights and shouldn't suffer because of things they had no choice over or "everyone is literally 100% genetically the same!!1!!".
Spook. No, but seriously. I'm not opposed to morals, I just don't want to be a slave to them. Of course I want a moral society, since this is in everyone's interest.
I'm not baiting, so thanks for the reply.
But I'm not convinced by this simple dichotomy of "leftism is more state" and "right wingers are less state", the issue is obviously more complex.
wrong, what would make you think so?
The question is:
Do you want to keep believing the leftist delusions without questioning them or do you want to know the truth and free yourself from from the shackles of the "feelings before facts" dogma?
But this would require me to have a nation I love and want to protect, which is not my case.
Name these "leftist delusions", all I know of are false. Also, I choose the third pill: youtube.com
Bread.
We aren't the right.
National socialism isn't on the political spectrum, but if you had to place it somewhere it would be just left of center, with Hitler being center, and GLR being just right of center. National socialism has nothing to do with conventional political divides, it seeks to create a sustainable, ecological, healthy, family-oriented, ethnically-homogenous state.
When you learn that communism is the same as capitalism in every way except its a shittier economic system to boot, you'll find your way to national socialism.
you sound like a tremendous boy-molesting fruit
The leftist delusion that people will work for free for the benefit of all. I mean sure, it didn't work the other times we tried it with Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, but if we just try again…
You should know better. Its just a retard trying to bait people. All of the leftist principles end up in communism. And Communism always succeeds in causing misery and killings millions of people, not only from starvation but also intentional genocides and only ever succeeds at those. Never succeeds at anything else. Communism has been so thoroughly debunked that arguing with a leftist is a waste of time.
In short. Stop entertaining the obvious troll.
Even if that was a realistic plan, by the time you'd achieved that, europe would already be destroyed by foreigners.
He means egalitarianism is nonsense, because people are not the same in character, intelligence etc. You wouldn't give the same rights to an infant as to an adult. Hence why should niggers have the same rights as white people?
And I'm obviously talking about western societies, no one gives a shit about what they do in their own hellholes.
Why should people trust you, when you aren't even loyal to the people who share your genes and heritage?
You won't starve to death.
gas yourself greedy kike scum
...
Why has no one asked OP's race?
OP are you white? What country do you live in?
Stop being butthurt because the mods are spergs, we all have to deal with that.
since you've proven you can reply in a non-REEE fashion:
leftist ideals require the assumption that humans aren't assholes to work. Marxism, communism etc., all this hinges on the idea that every human is altruistic and non-tribalistic in nature and greed isn't intrinsic to humans - a noble, but kindergarden notion.
Right ideals recognize these aspects of human nature and make use of them to create an equilibrium (countries, governments etc.) with the least amount of assholes in power through meritocracy - that is, whoever proves himself to be good at his job, retains job.
Both ideological positions are flawed when reality comes crashing in, because humans will always be assholes, period, creating both the grievances for the left - tight-controlling governments, and the grievances for the right - corruption. Moral degeneracy is a byproduct of a dominating ideological stance - the left overplayed their hand with multiculturalism and faggotry, while the right overplayed their hand before with religious fundamentalism and limiting artistic output.
tl;dr humanity is fucked and the right is a stabler choice producing less evil.
This. I went to argue Holla Forums's position on Holla Forums once only to realize most of them aren't just brainwashed whites but niggers, spics and kikes. It's completely hopeless over there.
left/right politics limits a movement's perspective
I think it's regrettable that it's been pulled back into such a debate.
Communism = Jews rule Europe
Fascism = Europeans rule Europe
Doesn't explain why OP isn't banned. Stop bumping a Holla Forums
You can gain back your morality.
There is no morality in enslaving people or stealing from them, even if it is done by vote.
If three people are in a room, and one of those people is Bill Gates. When they vote 2:1 to 'redistribute' bills wealth, they are not being 'democratic'. They are using mob rule to justify thievery.
There is no morality in the welfare state, using government force to take bread from another mans pocket to fill your own plate.
A truly moral man provides for himself, and his loved ones, and places no burden on anyone else. The left like to call this 'selfish', however they are the truly selfish ones as they demand that others work for them without compensation or consent. That's truly selfish.
Creating wealth for yourself is not a selfish act. Producing something of value and giving it to society, then receiving compensation in return is the least selfish thing you could do.
The left wants you to think that you are a victim, incapable of achieving or succeeding without handouts and hand-me-downs from your betters. The right knows you are great and wants to help you unleash that greatness and achieve your full potential.
If you imagine the left and right as if they were two friends.
The left would be that friend who complains about 'douchebag bullies' with you, and then turns on you and joins in the bullying as soon as they are around to try and seem cool.
The left would be that friend who complains about you guys being single, but then when you get a girlfriend he becomes jealous. Starts giving you shit about it and claiming you 'never hang out with him anymore' and trying to sabotage your relationship because he doesn't have one.
That is the entire leftist mentality, and because of this it always ends in suffering and destruction, because there is always someone less fortunate than you. There is always that friend without a waifu who will try to sabotage your happiness, and call you a 'douchebag' for achieving it. Left wing philosophy is a philosophy of envy, failure and destruction. The leftist friend is the guy still sitting in the corner of the party sipping his beer alone and criticising everything - even though he's 45 now and it stopped being cool three decades ago.
If the Right was a friend, he'd be the 'big brother' type who always encourages you and pushes you to be better. Sure he's more handsome than you, has more money than you, has a prettier girlfriend than you and kinda makes you envy him - but he's a role model to look up to. He's an example of what you could be. And yes he'd give you shit for being a 'wimp' or a 'pussy' at times, but he'd always be there to have your back. When you got in trouble he'd tell you to 'find a solution', but when you really needed it he'd still be there to pick you up. He may even seem harsh, cruel or mean at times, but he does so out of love rather than hatred, and it comes from a desire to see you succeed just as much as he has.
I know who I'd rather hang out with.
This is your problem, it's not that the ideals of leftism are necessarily evil, sure wanting everyone to be safe is a wonderful and charming idea however that's not the world we live in. We live in a hard world where competition exists between people, businesses, nation states, animals, everything. The leftist ideals are impossible to achieve, how could you possibly hope for any of this to happen? The amount of change it would require is impossible to achieve without complete domination of the world which in my opinion is evil, you would have to crush every single nation that wanted to stay independent. Your ideals are not realistic in this world, that's the real difference between the left and right. If you want to stay in disney land then stay on Holla Forums if not lurk more.
You can't achieve anything on the left. Except weight loss. The right, on the other hand, builds a future that is good for everyone. We accumulate capital through our hard work, and use it to serve society by driving down the cost of goods and services.
The "Left" (that is you guys) appear to be of the ideology that we must rebel against nature to achieve a perfect society. This is implemented in a variety of ways, such as simple Marx-Leninism and Neo-Transhumanism. You think Human Beings have evolved to the point that artificial means can replace natural ones to further our collective evolution so we can be whatever we want.
We, however, believe that natural law is an absolute and we must use natural law to better ourselves. Eugenics is following natural law of evolution. Transhumanism is an attempt to make man into a foregin species.
Also, to other Holla Forums anons, Youtube appears to have taken down George Lincoln Rockwell's speech on American National Socialism which I was going to embed. Anyone have a mirror?
You don't want to learn anything; you operate from an ego basis like all leftists, undoubtedly wearing your political convictions with pride for everyone to see (wearing communist regalia, pins, hats and the like at every opportunity).
You came here to smugly laugh at what you assumed would be dumb responses about teh jooz because you've lived in an echo chamber which your peers and the comforts of urban society have given you.
Then, you'll retreat to your echo chamber where you'll laugh with your fellows at said responses and reinforce everyone's ego based worldviews so as to stem the tide of existential dread you subconsciously live with daily.
You're an irrelevant speck of dust.
mods are asleep, there are several bait threads who are also not deleted.
Also, who knows this might fuel an interesting discussion. Can't hurt in any case
Nature, the corrector of all wrongs.
Yeah I can see the Church is doing a great job helping all those homeless people sleeping on benches, I'm sure those pastor's sports cars are just representative of their excellent work. Oh and so are those cancer charities, they're doing a great job by committing almost no money to actual cancer research but just to lining their own pockets.
The free market is the only solution to unemployment and poverty. Any other attempts at trying to distribute wealth will just fail because at it's core it's just socialism.
You aren't asking in a general manner, you are asking what right wing ideology can do for YOU, what YOUR benefit would be. You are the typical born-and-bred narcissistic GenY fuckboi with that sort of thinking.
As to why commies hate peace and prosperity, just look at North Korea. A communist society needs external threats to hold itself together. Lefties hate prosperous societies because they are living proof of the superiority of certain races and ideologies like capitalism. They'd rather everyone live in equal poverty than unequal prosperity.
I think you should start by lurking more.
...
Found it.
I don't know, what do you want? What is the left side not fulfilling for you? If it covers all your needs there's nothing. Left/right divide is kinda gay BTW
Pan nationalism is a position. It's relatively useless because there's an assumption that others will be able to make a home worth living for themselves, so in practice you usually end serving yourself better by preaching old fashioned nationalism. But for examle I have nothing but respect for the syrians fighting in Syria, the Japanese in Japan…
That's such a materialist (communist/capitalist) mindset. It's not about what you gain it's about something bigger than yourself.
Because any amount of resource sharing and egalitarianism is going to fail: ab c.n et.a u/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/there-are-not-enough-resources-to-support-the-worlds-population/5511900
So join the ranks and support your own.
My gut feeling says OP is probably South American, so not white.
Like others have said, you start with asking
Because you are selfish.
Like all leftists.
Left wing politics is the most selfish, evil, gibberish imaginable.
"It's okay to murder, kill, torture, enslave and steal from my fellow human beings and I am justified in doing so because I AM IN NEED"
That thinking lies at the very core of left wing ideology.
It breaks your morality because you have bought into the idea of original sin, and the belief that man must sacrifice in order to be moral & worthy.
This puts you at a moral dilemma with every waking decision you make, your entire life is fixed in paradox because you are constantly torn between what you Really Want and what you're told is Moral & Virtuous.
This makes you easy prey for manipulation, coercion and control. Because no matter which path you choose, your philosophy will make you a broken man. A shell torn apart by the internal battle between your desires and your conscience.
Stop pretending you're 'for the greater good'.
You're not, you just use it as a way justify your own selfish actions, which are vastly more selfish than those you lambast with such critiques.
Because you are coming from a place of ego, whereas we are coming from a place of self esteem.
Leftist illusions like:
instead of:
Jews are purposely shipping third worlders only in White nations to destabilize western society and easily rule over a mass of people with no social coesion nor common culture.
instead of:
promoting sodomy as fashionable is a way for the jews to reduce White fertility and also because a society without any morals is easier to subvert and eventually conquer.
hate speech laws is another way to call censorship, (((the ones))) promoting them don't give a fuck is someone gets offended for being called faggot or nigger, they just want to put in jail whoever dares to oppose them, and to achieve this, are using lefties, niggers and faggots with the excuse that (((they))) want those laws to protect their feelings.
And besides, even if that was the reason, which is not, it would be fuckig insane, and they dare to call "nazis" the oppressors.
Anyway my advice is stay here and lurk for a bit, taking the red pill needs time, but when you'll do, everything will finally make sense.
It has nothing to do with state power, it has to do with incentives. Who do you want your leaders to be? The best manipulators or those who have the greatest virtue towards their fellow man.
I think normal leftists try to do this, but dont realize that genetic ties mean most genetic aliens will simply try to take advantage of and consume them. The reason government was and has been tied to ethnicity is because it gives rise to a homogenous collective that cares about eachother on a level that goes beyond simple ethical teachings. This is why nations exist. Nations who abandon that are out of compliance with the greatest forces of nature, and will cease to exist, no matter how powerful they are.
White people still being alive past the year 2100.
it's not about moving to the right, it's about making TRUTH the most important thing in your life
embed related
Where do you live user? Most pastors don't have shit to live off of. The ones who are doing "average" (they can support their family in a suburban setting) are few and far between. Most pastors are poor as shit and still do all they can, and the ones who take advantage of mega churches and televangelism for money are almost universally condemned.
This. Ask yourself OP, do your ideas correspond with reality, human nature (inb4 essentialism), history and survival?
...
This tbh. Holla Forums is triggered as hell by things that are, by all standards, purely natural.
You are talking about a crowd of people that has convinced itself that women can have penises. Just saying.
Shit I didn't need to be remembered that, user.
Propaganda Incoming: libcom.org
There are sadly a bit more replies than I can properly answer to. Please don't feel offend if I give short answers, maybe I'll come back to them later on. Also, I'll be ignoring meme replies, sorry ^^
I'd want to just add that I'm no Holla Forums dogmatic, and I disagree with them plenty of times. Bit I still belive that capitalism (ie. predominance of wage labor and production for exchange/profit/valorisation) is or will become a problem over a long term perspective. Also, I'm against antifa and other IdPol maniacs.
You know this slave morality isn't that convincing, right?
Very well then, but "national socialism" does have quite a history of supporting capitalism and maintaining the existing power structures, crushing opposition, opposing unions, etc.
I'm vehemently against Stalin and Mao, and these kinds of exploitation you describe. I want people to get what they are worth, and to be fairly rewarded. That's why I'm a leftist.
I'm not a troll, I seriously want a debate. What is necessary for me to convince you?
no, I'm not delusional. We're not talking about solving every problem in this world
no, why should we do this?
Religion is a strictly private matter.
I'm originally from Yugoslavia, a nation that doesn't exist anymore, how should I be loyal to them?
(South) Slavic or what you call "White", in Germany but was born in the UK. Please don't hate
But this isn't true, and at no point is the pre-supposed.
They were probably playing with you, the last census showed we have +80% whites.
Well Holla Forums certainly does have some kind of a common idea on what their goals are, I just want to know why. If what you say is true, I'm probably already beyond brainwashed.
Ok, but I'm not in favor of what you discribe as communism but what I mean when I use the word. This is not "No true Scotsman, there is a obvious difference between what you call communism and what we are for. Also, just convincing me that communism is supposed to be bad, isn't an argument for you side, since I could then just as easily be a blue-pillded liberal. I know all the arguments against communism, they're not why I'm here. I want to understand your position.
Maybe I'm just kind?
I agree with what you say about exploitation and democracy, I know all of that.
I am against what most people on the left are for, but all in all I'm still a leftist, because I don't define my position by what others believe, but my own opinions.
Fair point, but I'd still like to achieve just 1% of my leftist goals then right-winger, thb. No offence though.
No I don't that's obnoxious. Again, I'm not some kind of a college antifa "radical".
No, it's more that I'm confused as to why this place is so popular, since I personally don't see the appeal.
I try and take everyone positions and concerns seriously, so no again ^^
I know ._.
Meh, not really. I've already heard all these points. It's probably also the same as when someone confronts you, and thinks they've got the ultimate argument against you.
True, I don't believe in nature as a metaphysical and unchangeable concept. I mean, we could destroy earth with nuclear bombs, and nature wouldn't save us there.
Ok, fair, I'll admit it, I phrased it that way to get responses. How would you have put it.
Also, why do you all talk about survival of the fittest and look down on egoists? Isn't this mutually excursive? I'm just taking the epicurean position on these issues.
Wrong?
No, I'm quite satisfied, but I thought to myself maybe there is something I don't know.
Such as communism?
because national socialism is the actual truth
Weak willed people aka plebs need labels to feel safe within their herd.
The left-right paradigm is D&C at it's purest and second example of mass D&C in history. With the addition of being a blatant example of Hegelian dialectics.
Conservatives will hold their own in tradition and unwillingness to adapt when the need rises. Reformation being the best example. And in the modern world where technology advances in a logarithmic fashion, classical conservatism in not practical. The best society for these kinds of people are something like China before Western contact. Perfect harmony until you get hit by a cataclysmic asteroid and your civilization has to start over and over and over and over.
The left will cling to their ideology of "helping" people in the same way. But the main problem is that the goals of their handlers aren't virtuous as they seem to be. The main goal of the left ideology since the French Revolution was not freedom or "democracy" or any fancy system that you dream of. But instead it was slavery, just under (((different masters))) instead of monarchs. Democracy is just a passign stage, as Lenin said.
You can already see the tools of this system. Big all encompassing government, total information control and no personal property. The sole purpose of the left is to drive a wedge and push society where the handlers want it to be. One World Government. And no one knows how would it look like becouse if we look at Soviet Union, the leaders did a 180° as soon as they got into power. And Soviet Union was heralded as a "glimpse of the terror to come".
I don't like to paint myself as anything becouse I don't follow blindly but the movement of national socialists is the best example of a non aligned, centrist movement that recognized the (((divide))) and attempted to rectify it.
First through the big umbrella strategy where nationalists and socialists were brought together and mediated till they discovered that the l-r paradigm is useless if it doesn't work for the benefit of the people.
What works on the right is retained: moral values, tradition of the nation that keeps the bond among people strong, preservation of land, blood and national symbols. Everything that keeps a nation rolling. Discarded are the close mindedness, extreme conservatism that destroys technological progress and the rest of nepotism that comes with it.
What works on the left is retained: social programmes that help the nation, blood and tradition. Not to enslave with gibs, but to help only to the most needy that can't help themselves. Nothing more. Aka Bismarck's socialism. Everything else is pretty much just a brick in the wall of international totalitarianism.
tl;dr
The question whether you should step to the right or left is irrelevant when both sides fight for their proven failed system.
The question should be: Am I willing to put all my personal differences, ego flaws and emotions aside in order to design and fight for a system that OBJECTIVELY functions the best in PRACTICE.
Yeah your ideology isn't going to conquer the world and you cannot force other radicals to be peaceful, there will always be war, and if there isn't, then the human population will be catastrophic, you're living in a feel-good pipe dream.
You can give people the same rights but it doesn't mean anything, Finland for example is a very egalitarian society, yet a great majority of the sexes pick jobs that fits their sex, men do construction jobs and the like, women pick social jobs such as elementary teachers and being a nurse. It's like giving a paraplegic the right to walk, it's pointless.
How can you have a moral society if you don't want to be a slave to them? If there's a society where morals are optional then the society won't last.
This is why the left is losing, showing disdain towards your own country and people has proven you people to become undesirable to the masses.
This is flatout false, you fucking retard. National Socialism was against Capitalism because as put by the NSDAP, Capitalism believes that capital creates jobs and the NSDAP believes that jobs create capital, and for that they rejected Capitalism. Source: Nazi-Sozi by Joseph Goebbels.
Maintain power structures is necessary for any movement, dumbass. As goes the same for crushing opposition.
Crashing unions? Really? They made state unions to make both the worker and the owner wasn't fucked over. Source: For the Abolition for Interest-Slavery
You also ignored my post here: We don't have the resources to stain a 'decent' life for everyone under Communism unless you want to depopulate the world by quite a few people. If that's your plan, then good luck - but you, I and everyone else in this life will be far and gone by then and as of TODAY, you are fighting for a unforeseeable pipedream.
You shouldn't, we need bad human examples to teach people not to be like you.
Feindbilder gehören zur Gesellschaft.
that's a joke, you know that right? It's an oxymoron.
Note, if you respond to my block-posts, please quote. It makes it easier for me to respond to. Also, I have to go now, but I'll come back later.
The problem is that all this "Jewish" talk isn't that convincing to me. Maybe it's just because I don't like what looks like conspiracies to me. Or because I think it's a bit too far fetched most of the times. Anyways, I've been on halfchan for quite a while, and your message isn't unknown. Tankies talk about how (((Porkies))) are trying to subvert them too all the time, and I don't find them convincing either.
Ideally, I want no rulers. The second best is rulers that are under permanent scrutiny of the people who elect them.
Sure, no problem with that.
What is it you mean when you say truth? How can you ever be sure you've achieved it?
Absolutely, that's the materialism in historical materialism. Species survive better when they cooperate among eachother than when they live alone.
What makes you think that?
Is there a reference I'm missing? I'm not that engaged in board wars.
I seriously reget phrasing the question the way I did. Again, as already mentioned, my main goal is to find out why people support what is commonly called "right wing" or whatever you wish to call your own positions here.
I have no problem with this.
Morals are always optional, at least on a personal level. Society gives them power, and without society, they wouldn't exist. Again, I'm taking the epicurean position on this issue.
As already explained, this is a personal issue, not a general one. I literally cannot neither show disdain nor love to a country or people that don't exist anymore.
I'm sorry, I thought it was just a joke reply. Also, your link was broken. I'll take a look at it, but as far as I knew, we had the opposite problem.
All in all, this was the kind of stuff I was looking for, and not just memes.
Wie bin ich ein "Feindbild"? Ich mache nichts falsch, bin immer nett und freundlich :^)
Power.
That's the spirit.
Cause I was not trying to apply reverse psychology.
The light side loses quite a bit of meaning without the contrasting dark side.
Why should you abandon the left and go far right? Because it's a move toward the truth. The left has a lot of beautiful-seeming ideas, but they're not true. The New Soviet Man is a pleasant dream, but he never came about and he never will. The Labor Theory of Value sounds just lovely, but it's obviously false and it's worthless for explaining or predicting anything at all (pretty good for propaganda though, I admit).
Then there's the wicked pulsing lie-heart of the "Enlightenment" beast: the Tabula Rasa. There's no question that it would be nice if we were all born with infinite potential, and if we weren't slaves to genes and instincts designed for a long-departed world of small-scale tribal hunter-gatherers, but that's just how things are. Obviously we can learn, and we are influenced by our environments, but we are not infinitely flexible. We're naked chimps, and we are driven to form chimp-bands and rumble with other chimp-bands. We want status, we want possessions, we want reproduction, and we want to smash up other people for no reason than that they are Other. These drives aren't great, but they're not all bad either. Deny them, ignore them, suppress them - you're going to fail. Acknowledge them and try to channel and direct them toward useful, or at least non-destructive, ends, and you're going to do a little better, though you'll have to give up on the dream of heaven-on-earth. It's no coincidence that communism's greatest achievement, victory in WWII, was achieved while Stalin went against Marxist dogma and heretically tapped into nationalism and tribalism.
Once you accept that Man is a beast whom you are never going to perfect, you develop a bit more respect for tradition and "superstition." Old customs, folkways, and taboos might seem pointless or irrational, but every one of them is the product of centuries if not millennia of memetic selection and evolution. They're far from perfect, some are no longer useful in a changed environment, and not all them are worth preserving, but they all came about for good reasons. Smashing them because they don't fit into your rationalist abstract vision of how things should be has proven to be a mistake time and again.
Not egocentric. Got it.
It's not slave morality it's having a sense of duty, honor and morality.
The idea of honour is inseparable from the idea of freedom. – Alfred Rosenberg
You are a part of a folk connected by race and their collective life is bigger than yours.'
That's just wrong. NatSoc opposes capitalism.
Sounds like natsoc tbh.
" 'To each his own' , but above all 'Public interest before self-interest' '' – Gottfried Feder
Leftism per definition need to solve every problem in the world. You want the world to be in a perfect equilibrium and if it's not you either start to crumble or fiercely destroy this "hiccup".
You should be loyal to your folk. A nation is just arbitrary border with sovereign government.
You should read The first parts of MK where Hitler talks about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It's a similar situation.
Only burgers talk about whites.
Yes, race. politics is trivial in terms of the political.
“Politics” is tied to rationalism, materialism, economism, and the rule of Mammon, all of which undermine authority, tradition, and the imperatives of the “political.” – Carl Schmitt
Nature is more than the earth, it's all of space. The earth is just a consequence of nature.
No, communism is collective materialism, opposed to capitalism which is individual materialism. Materialism is always egocentric in the end.
Im talking about something that is bigger than yourself on all planes of existence.
What? The opposite problem? The only way you can get the opposite problem is by literal (literal) creation of mass - which is impossible.
And here's even more!: www .bbc. com/news/magazine-33133712
That personal issue is why you went with the left. The right is seen as more aggressive and brutal to people who have no comprehension of community, while the left just pays "the people who need it most". Apathy is tied to depression, too, and welfare requires much less input and stress than running a business, which are the two groups most affected by the respective parties. As a fence sitter I think most people would be Democrat for those reasons. Typically people who swing left were very religious upbringing and want more expression, less rigidity, conformity, not defaulting to trust for outgroups. People who swing right are dismayed at the lack of respect for personal rights and the unfair redistribution of wealth. One of those directions is logical, the other is not.
No, you only want to stop refugees from becoming refugees. How the fuck are you gonna manage that for even one region of the world? Hell, even to stop it in one country would be so expensive that it'd wreck every country trying to do that.
Then of course you also have the ngos who are promoting people leaving their homes and fleeing to europe and even sponsoring boats for them( archive.is
Official Eu-Statistics say that about 60% of the so called migrants come to the EU for economical reasons. They come for the gibs. archive.is
Well, I'm pretty sure the ethnic group that you belong to still exists. Go and live among your own kind.
Can't wait till we string faggots like you up or run you out of our country. You have a lot of nerve taking advantage of our hospitality and then promoting policies, that mean rape and beatings for our women and children. I hope your death will be slow and painful.
Sinking them?
You've already done everything in your power to convince me that you're a troll with your egocentric traitorous attitude and being absolutely unapologetic about it. Not to mention Holla Forums is Holla Forums - Truth at all costs (regardless of shills and cucks posting) and not some nazi hideout like you think.
The only reason anyone tries to convert Holla Forums is sentimentality. Oldfags of both used to shitpost together on Holla Forums and they'd rather not hang you on the day of the rope.
Do or don't, the redpill threads here provide more than enough information to make our case
TBH, looking from all your answers ITT you don't care about any of that. You just enjoy attention, you give one line replies to posts that were given way more thought than your own and just try to push your shitty communism subtly while dismissing everything that comes from the opposite side.
And I recognize your format of writing as that regular Holla Forums poster that comes once in a while here, get's BTFO/explained like a toddler and then goes home to claim victory over the natzees.
Please, go back to Holla Forums with your shallow view of politics and masturbate over it over there.
Not to mention that supporting communism (which is any leftist ideology that exists right now) is equal to and the same as supporting starvation and genocide and nothing else. Since that's all it ever does whenever it has been tried.
This is honestly the problem with mystery meat, you have no idea where you come from and nowhere where you belong. Most yugos didn't consider themselves yugos, they saw themselves embroiled in an alliance of necessity, whether that person was a croat a serb or a turk-I mean bosnian.
This is a bunch of pseudoscientific crap.
Cooperation and sociality are useful traits, but they are not the be-all-end-all of evolution, nor are they without downsides, nor do they involve species-wide cooperation.
From ants to wolves to apes, the social animals cooperate within their own nest, or band, or colony, but they compete ruthlessly with other groups of the same species. I know of no species that cooperates on a species-wide level. I could certainly be wrong on that, and I'd love to hear a counter-example if anyone has one, but the even if there exist one or two exceptions, species-wide cooperation is clearly not typical. Note that I'm aware of the European "supercolonies" of the fire ant Solenopsis invicta, and they are not an exception as these are an anomaly caused by a genetic bottleneck and are not found the ant's native range; they'll be back to intraspecies competition in the blink of a geological eye.
Sociality also opens vulnerabilities to social parasitism, as seen in the many and wondrously-varied creatures that parasitize ant society, or the cute kittens that parasitize ours. There is also the issue of defection vs cooperation within the social group, which is seen even in many of the eusocial insects, and is rampant in the presocial mammals, including humans.
Your Soul
I read the later reply that you were from Yugoslavia which doesn't exist anymore.
Indeed, and if you make morals optional then it will become decadent, and by decadence I mean homosexuality, women in the army, hermaphroditism, anything that destroys the moral of Family and traditionalism which works perfectly fine and keeps nations strong. Decadence weakens the people and destroys nations.
Leftist politics of today are used by elites who are culturally or ethnically different than the majority population in order to protect and justify their rule over the populace. You are taught to be a loyalist to elites who hate you. They segregate themselves from you with their own schools, religions, political parties, and communities and work to ensure they hold majority control of leadership positions in institutions directly or by influence. If you do not agree, then you are a racist. If you resist, then there is threat of violence. If you try to take control, then there is civil war.
Then you will be swept away by those how have.
World history is made by minorities, if these numerical minorities possess in themselves the will, energy and initiative of the majority. – Adolf Hitler
You cant ,that's the point. You can be sure you are on to truth when you know you can't achieve it, you can only strive for it. Life is a constant struggle.
Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live – Adolf Hitler
Because we recognize truth, duty, honor and love our own. That's the way of life and hence the way of nature. Everything leads to nihilism, materialism and misery.
pic related. It does not directly address morals but the underlying principle is the same.
mp4 related. And that's why we are fighting (((this))) that wants to destroy the nations and the volk.
You said it yourself, you cant love a nation or a people that doesnt exist anymore and that will ultimately lead to you only seeing to yourself and that will lead to nihilism and materialism.
You wont gain a comprehensive view of a pollack world view just from this thread so my sugjestion is for you to read. PDF's should have all the books you need.
Do you know what german idealism is? If not you should familiar yourself with it, its the basis for modern european nationalist political theory.
Read spenglers decline of the west
Read Manifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money by Gottfried Feder
Read imperium by francis parker yockey.
Watch and read all of johanathan bowdens work he was the last real intellectual on the new right. This youtube channel has much of bowdens best work
A perfectly valid question, and whole book could be written on a subject.
The the cliffnotes version:
1. Social trust. There is good data to show that trust and cooperation is lower in multiracial communities than in monoracial ones. People withdraw in multiracial societies, they turn to escapism, drugs, and trendy lifestyles. There is no resource sharing because nobody wants to share with people whom he doesn't trust.
2. Lack of ethnic conflict. A view towards history convinces us that, sooner or later, ethnic conflict boils over when different peoples are forced to cohabitate. The combination of diversity and promixity almost invariably leads to conflict. See: the countless instances of race riots, civil wars, pogroms, ethnic cleansins. When the social order collapses - which diversity hastens -, people will chimp out like there's no tomorrow, slitting the throats of infants, raping children, and bashing in the head of every foreigner they see.
3. Victimization. Whites are the recipients of the overwhelming majority of cross-ethnic crime, and we are seen as victims who won't fight back. I am thinking of Blacks and Muslims specifically here. Muslims in Europe, for instance, specifically target White people in both street crime and acts of terrorism. In the famous example of Rotherham (and many other cities across England), predominantly Pakistani Muslims raped thousands of White girls over the span of years, and police knew about it, yet did not act for fear of being called "racist". There is no reasoning with individuals who think in a predatory manner and who will pounce the moment they smell weakness.
4. The influence of the Jew. I know that I will encounter stiff resistance on this point (it is the ultimate taboo, after all, worse than racism or sexism), but Jews pursue a parasitic economic and ethnic strategy among Whites. Not only do they engage in rent-seeking behavior (ask anyone who rented from a Jewish slum lord), and not only do they undermine our culture (the porn industry was essentially built by Jews, for the explicit purpose of "[destroying Christian culture] because we think Christ sucks" [1]), but they are actively working to destroy our societies, and - let's not mince words here - our race. Post-war non-White immigration into White Europe and into the US was a largely Jewish project. In Germany, they told people that they needed guest workers; in France, it was people from the former colonies who had to be welcomed as fellow Frenchmen; in Sweden, it was one's humanistic duty; in England, there was a shortage of nurses, and one had to welcome people from the former Commonwealth countries. Different lies were told in different countries, but the end result was a influx of hostile foreigners. I cannot know the motivations of the people responsible, of course, but the rationale, even if unconscious, was that Jews would stick out less in a multiracial society.
Take another example: Islamic terrorism. I'm the last person to defend Islam, but the radicalization of the Islamic world is the consequence of 80 years of meddling by Western powers at the behest of Israel. This should resonate with you too: Israel and it's American "ally" smashed all of the Arab Socialist and secular regimes and often outright supported the Islamists who moved in after their collapse. Who defanged the secular PLO, making room for Hamas? Who threw Egypt into disarray in 2011? Who armed the Islamists in Lybia? Who deposed Saddam, and at whose behest? You can look up the Neocon and Israeli advocacy for the war in Iraq. Who armed the "moderate rebels" in Syria, instigating a years-long bloody civil war and the rise of ISIS?
This doesn't even go into the examples of directly Jewish perfidy and treason: it was Julius and Ethel Rosenberg who gave US nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union. Israel, likely fearing that its death camps for Palestinians would be discovered, bombed the USS Liberty. And speaking of the Soviet Union: None other than Stalin himself decried that the NKVD was "full of Jews", and he was being conservative. In reality, the entirety of the higher echelons were majority Jewish, from the NKVD to the Central Committee, to the Party Leadership. Jews were responsible for most of the atrocities that have the Soviet Union its bad reputation. After centuries of living on the margins of Russian society, they took bloody vengeance upon their erstwhile hosts: mass executions, rapes, gulags.
Lavrentiy Beria, Jew and chief of the NKVD until 1953, was not only known as a sadist who would order his man to snatch up random women who struck his fancy so that he could rape, them, he even made moves on Stalin's daughter Svetlana while Stalin was the leader of the SU. Moreover, it is quite likely that he caused Stalin's death, at least by preventing him from getting medical attention [2], but possibly by outright murdering him. [3]
If you're interested in an exhaustive account of Jewish ethnic activism and its disastrous effect on Europe, read The Culture of Critique.
1. jewishquarterly.org
2. >Lozgachev tried in futility to explain to Beria that the then-unconscious Stalin (still in his soiled clothing) was "sick and needed medical attention." Beria angrily dismissed his claims as panic-mongering and quickly left, ordering him, "Don't bother us, don't cause a panic and don't disturb Comrade Stalin!"
Montefiore, Simon Sebag (2005). Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar., p650
3. en.wikipedia.org
Daily reminder that your supposed anticapitalism, like nearly every single position hitlerites have, is pure populism and opportunism.
You faggots also failed to give an argument to OP, instead resorting to baseless accusations which are most probably projections.
All leftist ideology is founded on lies.
One of the largest lies is that all men are equal.
For one example, if you cannot face the truth of inequality and hierarchy in nature, race, DNA and evolution, every other idea that you espouse that follows MUST also be false, because it is built on this false foundation.
Maybe we can never be 100% sure we have found Truth, but if you refuse facts that do not fit your ideology even once, you are on the wrong path.
The left never acknowledges it's falsehoods because "the ends justify the means".
They prefer to shut down dissenting opinion with ad-hom insults and violence rather than accept that their entire ideology is based on fundamental falsehoods.
because it's race war, not class war, you stupid brainwashed faggot
the only thing that matters is the survival of the white race
leftism was created by the jews to attack the white race
Good read user, thanks
marxists.org
Please kill yourself and rid the world of your stupidity.
Marx pre-supposed that when he imagined giving the Workers "the means of production" back was going to lead to the workers actually working, not to start fucking about bickering between them, see: USSR, the famines due to farmers collectively saying "fuck it", work stopping almost completely so the gubmint is forced to appoint enforcers (militia, KGB etc.) just so work continues.
oh ffs, forgot your (You)
Marx pre-supposed that when he imagined giving the Workers "the means of production" back was going to lead to the workers actually working, not to start fucking about bickering between them, see: USSR, the famines due to farmers collectively saying "fuck it", work stopping almost completely so the gubmint is forced to appoint enforcers (militia, KGB etc.) just so work continues.
Cool it with the Ancap remarks, Ayn Rand.
Bill Gates didn't earn his money on some uninhabited desert island, but in the context of a society. This society provided the framework of patent laws, copyright, limited-liability corporations, and employment contracts which allowed him to amass his fortunes.
A patent is a right that the government enforces and which prevents anyone from independently developing the same product, even if he bears the full costs of R&D and manufacture. What would be Windows and Office be without the swathes of frivolous patents on patents and automatic updates, and hand-shaped-cursors that Microsoft uses to lock out the competition? This ability is granted entirely by "mob rule", unless Microsoft wants to invest in private assassins to kill anyone who makes a better OS.
The same can be said for copyright: the State prohibits anyone from making a copy, using his own resources and in the privacy of his own home, of an existing product. This is justified through the entirely fictitious category of "intellectual property" which implies that one can own abstract concepts.
What of the limited-liability corporation? Through this legal instrument, real humans create "legal persons", which amounts to little more than declaring immunity from criminal and civil prosecution. "Oh, sure, PolluteCo spilled those carcinogens, but what are you going to do? It was done by a legal person, and you can't put a company in jail, can you?" Manslaughter can be paid off with blood money - if even that: if the corporation declares bankruptcy, the participant humans walk away with the personal fortunes intact, and investors and creditors are defrauded.
It is the State, too, that permits a contract that involves you selling your labor, without being entitled to its benefits. The corporation can hire you as a slave, essentially: you are entitled to fixed wage, not to a portion of the profits, and you must unconditionally follow orders. This virtual slavery is justified with the paper-thin excuse that people can change jobs, but that, aside from being facetious - a slave can just run away too -, is besides the point: it is the State that permits this arrangement; it hasn't come down from the Heavens. The State could simply rule that corporate republic were henceforth the only legal form of legal entity, and that each employee would vote for leaders who would answer to their constituency, the employees. It is not at all "natural" that the owners of capital should have - "obviously" - commanding authority over the way a company is run. Can the bank quarter in its employees in your house if it gives you a mortgage, after all? Capital has been elevated into the position of command by state fiat alone.
In all your arguments, you unquestioningly take on board the ideology promulgated by the upper classes of the 19th century who wanted to work their employees to death, if possible. The idea that work, as much work as possible, performed without question, is a tool designed to keep you in the status of a slave who think he's some Übermensch because he bears pointless suffering. To convince yourself of the hypocrisy of this stance, just look at how your owners live:
Do they work for minimum wage?
Do they work 2 jobs, 60 hours a week?
Do they wake up at 7 in the morning to rush to work?
What they have deemed to be good for themselves, they have not deemed to be good for you. They have told you that your own purpose in life - they way to be "honorable", "upstanding", "hard-working" - is to enable their luxury, which they finance from parasitic skimming off your labor, and you have believed.
As thanks for all of your hard work, they flood your countries with hordes of hostile immigrants to keep you desperate, fearing crime in the street and replacement in the workplace. The Left, deluded as it is, is right about the entirely parastic nature of the Capitalist class, which can be condemned from a Right-Wing perspective: they are blood-suckers and traitors who betray and destroy the nations that have enabled their fantastic wealth. Until they, and the entire system which has brought them forth, is liquidated, we will never have peace.
hi hitler
SHOO SHOO ANTIFA
Get your long-haired faggot ass out of here. Or check out the next redpill thread and you will no longer be commie scum. That is all i have to say.
The problem with this is that it all breaks down with scale. Am I to hand over share in my small business because I regularly pay a guy to sweep the floors? What about the kid who mows my lawn, is he entitled to not only part of my house but also a share in John Deer?
that is probably a difficult concept to grasp, but it happens! Crazy, I know! I mean, retirement funds are basically this on a smaller scale, who could have thought of it?
The problems begin when rich assholes start using their money to gain power and that's fundamental human nature you can't defeat, no matter if you remove money or remove rich assholes (both have been tried over the ages with leftist revolutions, France, USSR etc.). Humans want power over other humans and that is something that will remain unchangable. This is who we are. Accept it and work around it, or face yet another defeat from reality not living up to your ideology. Even NatSoc is destined to fail once rich enough assholes starts meddling.
The problem isn't being rich. The problem isn't money existing. The problem is that humans are, by their very nature, by their very birth, assholes.
...
I would argue that some people have power over others is not necessarily a bad thing; sometimes it's called tyranny, and sometimes it's called leadership. What's the difference between those two? The intentions and actions of the person in power. Hitler had power over people, but the Germans loved him, because he was in a position to try and help all of Germany and her people, and he did what he could to do just that. Rich men vying for power is not necessarily a bad thing if they have the interests of their race and nation at heart. The real problem is when you have rich people inject their money into politics to buy power and they have no intent and making anything better or doing the best things for the people under them. All White countries today have that problem because white countries aren't in control of them. Even if they were, a capitalistic market totally devoid of morals would lead to the same results.
When will you faggots realize that the only way you'll ever even possibly have your socialist paradise is if you kick out all the nonwhites and kikes?
Implying I'm a filthy proletariat who works for someone else.
As for the legal entities thing, in such a case the individuals responsible should be tried for negligence or similar acts. Cases such as those you describe almost universally stem from the socialist elements of our society.
GEE I WONDER
and that's the tragedy here, isn't it? Humanity needs to be led since removing leadership inevitably leads to tribalism and violence. So we tried some different systems of leadership, with tyranny and democracy so far offering the best results, with the first one being a crapshoot since you either end up with various degrees of asshole or someone genuinely caring for his people, the second moderating the asshole quota through popular vote (which also has the chance of stopping retarded asshole policies). Nobody seems to have any better ideas for governance systems so far.
Since humanity is unchangingly selfish/greedy and there's no system that would choose the right man to lead every time, basically we are fucked in an eternal struggle of switching between ideologies throughout history blaming everything but human nature.
Small scale now, the jews were a legit choice for blame in this context, since their… well, I'm reluctant to use the word "human", but they revel in their nature - of greedy, power-grubbing fucks hell-bent on steering things behind the curtain - and that coincided with the fact that they remain completely unapologetical assholes and keep meddling in shit. If you're inclined to count them among humans, they're the absolute worst in humanity rolled into an ethnic/religious group.
It does break down at the small scale, but that doesn't mean that it isn't applicable at all.
It's one thing that the janitor shouldn't have a say in what database technology to use, but it's another to say that nobody should have any say at all, except the guys with the money (money they likely accrued via (((interest))) ).
None of what I said need apply to small businesses and private persons. If you want to pay some kid 10$ to mow your lawn, then go ahead. If you want to hire some guy to sweep the floors and the only thing he does is sweeping, that's fine too. However, you could also institute the following reforms:
And wouldn't you know it, corporations would no longer be able to work people as slaves and keep them in perpetual debt. There are also a few good points in the party program of the NSDAP that never got realized because Hitler cucked out to the industrialists.
The problem isn't being rich, or even being an asshole. The problem is that society has given instruments to people to get rich off the labor of others and and to create artificial monopolies that are only enforced by state power. Bill Gates wasn't just a wily businessmen who made great products; he used patents to muscle out competition, copyright to control distribution of Microsoft software, and the limited liability of Microsoft to insulate his own person from liability for his actions. When people naively talk about somebody's business success, they assume that it's 100% hard work and 0% of legal instruments that help the rich get richer and fuck over the working class.
i wonder how you can afford internet access and the device you're currently posting from. Sorry user, but all images are unflattering - either you're a daddy's-money faggot riding on the hard work of others like the "elites" you hate, or you're a homeless bum who "found" a working phone and are sleeping behind a Starbucks.
Or you could be underage :^)
So society are assholes for having such instruments in the first place, and people are assholes for using them, while you're retards for not using them. Better?
...
lol.
so you're working off his labours, then, mr. elite wifi user?
Nations matter. Borders matter. Culture matters. Tribe matters. Family matters.
Unlike trans-helicopters and other made up tumblr neuroticisms, you have a real identity, a real connection with your soil and your people. Your nation is an extension of your tribe is an extention of your family, and all of these act as a multi-layered support network. Leftists want to erode these support networks saying "WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" but in practice, eroding these networks will make you entirely dependent on the state. Leftism is all about control where the Right is more about recognizing that these things matter and they are in fact what make us free, strong, proud, and healthy.
ROOTLESS
COSMOPOLITAN
You claim to support "the workers' struggle," but how well do you know the workers? I spent much of my youth with my grandfather, a farmer who had to drop out of school when he was in 6th grade to work in coal mines to alleviate the financial stress his parents were under. He had to go back to the farm life after an accident left him crippled.
His life was a story of struggle, sacrifice, and dedication to family and country. He appreciated the land, the people, and hard work. He never supported communism, and would have resisted you with guns if you tried to implement it.
The problem with capitalists and communists is that both display a thinly-veiled disdain for people like my grandfather. They view such people as backwards, dumb, pesky, in need of pacification or "guidance." He never lived to see the likes of (((Bill Kristol))), (((NRO))), and the other (((neocons))) outright declare that the white, working-class should be exterminated, though I doubt he would have appreciated that analysis. On the other hand, if some smarmy urbanite had approached him to say that tradition and dedication to folk are "spooks," and that he should embrace Marxism, he would have slammed the door shut in your face.
You do understand that it's not just the leaders that can fuck up but also the people. You want to protect idiots who have proving us constantly that they can't do shit themselves and are unwilling to improve themselves even when giving the tools.
We help them now, we get stabbed in the back for it as always.
but he does not have to pay extra for me and he loses nothing
Actually (as is always the case with the left, and I do mean 100% of the time), there is massive hypocrisy here. They say "we are all individuals" and "we are all unique," while simultaneously saying "we are all the same" and "we're all just people." Not to mention communism wrecks any concept of individuality and sets the system up to treat everyone like interchangeable cogs in a machine. It's part of the reason art suffered so horrifically in the USSR: why bother working to make something only you can create when literally everyone gets to lay claim to it? And thus the nation plods along at the slowest pace of their weakest links, because you'd need to be mad to expend all the effort just so those who don't work as hard as you can take it. It's also total madness to think an entire country will be entirely driven by a totally fabricated ideology, that was one of Marx's most retarded fucking things: thinking that he could have an entire nation of ideologues who saw the "brilliance" of his completely made-up ideas.
but he has to pay for wifi and you're not paying him for using it, meaning the transfer of wealth stopped on the guy you're stealing your wifi from and you're just a parasite.
But it's ok, you're thinking like OP, in terms of your selfish self, not actually contributing anything to your imagined utopian system.
When you remember a lot of Leftists come from broken homes it's no wonder they hate the idea of Family. Daddy issues.
Don't post Tito as a representation of leftism, faggot.
The Yugoslav question is one that can't be solved with leftist policies, and the bolsheviks aren't welcome anywhere near the balkans.
Next thing youll say im a parasite if i live of some someone literal shit.
Milosovich had the right idea. Remove it.
Yes and no. I would equally expect it to be the other way around. In fact maybe that's why they embrace so many degenerates and fuckups, they never had a family so they embrace whoever they can to form an illusion of one. In any case, do not forget that some of the most outspoken leftists faggots come from very stable and mostly upper-middle to high-class homes, where daddy has a lot of money and daddy's kid has a trust fund. Remember Lipshitz? Just as an example.
By that logic, I should I just let niggers flood my country. It's the system, after all, and our leaders are all assholes, so why struggle?
Leftists don't understand the tribalistic nature of the balkans. They dont understand that family, tribe, and land are all important aspects of slavic life.
So when a world war comes around sides are chosen on a philosophical basis even amongst people of the same ethnicity and tribe.
These borderless commies wouldn't know what to do with yugoslavia.
But i love the entire area all the same.
nah, just recognize you're actually using someone else's labour for free - in that case, the guy is paying for his wifi while you're not
i never said that. Struggling against inevitability is noble in itself and humans keep evolving, ever so slowly. If we ever unshackle ourselves from our nature, only then could I picture any kind of utopia. For now, we're destined to struggle in shit no matter what we do, so choosing a system that breeds the least degeneracy and evil would help with that a fucking lot. The right has it closer on my account, NatSoc or not.
We have to remember the modern Balkan tensions are a result of the "diverse" and "multi-cultural" Austro-Hungarian Empire imploding. I hope the best for the people there, but know that the map will continue to be redrawn as various conflicts continue to erupt. Diversity is nobody's strength.
As another user said , it's perfectly valid question but I don't appreciate his answer. It's too based on consequences, as if it isn't a good in itself.
It is as if you were asked by "why should I want redistribution of wealth", and the answer would be of moral nature or critique of existing state. The former could be answered with "why should I want to be moral?" and the latter I don't quite appreciate, other than as pure informative segment.
In the end, I think it comes down to what appeals to you inwardly. We might as well be different species.
The best opportunity for the balkans would be economic independence. It makes sense that the pan-slavic tito took charge considering the situation of the Ottomans and both world wars.
The biggest threat is still kebab and the jewropean union. So hopefully there will be some sort of economic/nationalist group that can repair the hatred between serbs, croats, and bosnians.
Slavs have a tendency to be nationalistic. If a charismatic leader man can bring back the economy, he will be able to do a lot for the slavic peoples.
The memes are better
Trudeau exemplifies the modern "Socialism with a human face". Where the old commies would rob you while shoving guns in your face, Trudeau will rob you while threatening to shoot himself. The result is the same, but one is more marketable.
spooked
Fuhrer digits 4 your post
This has to be bait
You mean random nobodies?
I don't want to live my life serving other people like some sort of cuck, sorry.
All of that shit is untrue though. Nice job leftypol you always lie.
Oh social authoritarians why are you so see-through?
You don't live in a vacuum. People are rewarded for servicing others, and if you don't offer any service then you're freeloading. This makes you dependent on the service of others. But I wouldn't expect a Leftist who can't see past his own nose to be smart enough to make that connection.
lmao
you're doing that either way, both in a leftist hippie fag utopia, or in your capitalist reality which you so hate. You either serve your commune faggots, or you serve your employer. Why? Because you can't survive doing nothing you fucking retard. Having kids is an investment like that - you use up your resources to bring in another soul into the world, so that soul is dependant on your labors, or else he will die.
So you're either an amoral asshole who thinks labouring for others is beneath him, or you're labouring for others whether you like it or not.
Seems like concepts such as argumentation are inexistent in your brainlet mass, no wonder you choose a populist ideology to save you from the evil big Other.
You instead resort to shitposting when unable to confront reality.
Leftists always project.
okay, this lost me. I'm Italian, I'm Catholic and I even understand your passion and goals, but you mostly want to remove my faith from existence.
Good bye forever, Holla Forums. What a shame…what a shame: there's so much potential in you.
Like my boss. A lazy shit who gets rich off my work. I don't care if he's white, black, kike, whatever, he's getting rich of my work and I'm not going to put up with that cucked economics.
I'm not doing that in a system that has been pioneered by a well respected evolutionary biologist to specifically avoid that exact situation. (kropotkin)
I only talked about a generic ethnostate, not about Hitler's Germany.
An ethnostate has a low probability of experiencing intranational ethnic conflict (who'd you attack?). On the other hand, ethnic conflict in a multiracial state is almost a certaint
...
Maybe you'll be the boss some day, then maybe you'll understand he has a different role and more responsibility than you do.
how in the fuck is this not labour for the benefit of others? How the fuck is "mutual exchanges" not labouring so others can labour for you?
North Korea, being an authoritarian right wing ethno-state is a good example of the failures of right wing ethno-states. You wouldn't need to attack anyone within your borders, but you would have a hostile relationship to everyone except your sponsor state (to nk, it's china)
That might be the case for some, but that doesn't imply that a menacing other does not indeed exist. Some people have a hysterical fear of Muslims, say, but that doesn't mean that Muslims don't engage in terrorism and gang rapes.
At least you acknowledge it.
It's mutually beneficial. It's for others but also for yourself, instead of being purely for others (nationalism, capitalism, whatever) or purely for yourself (pure chaos and murder) it's good for you and everyone around you at the same time, and if it's not good for you, you needn't take part, duh.
The DPRK is not right wing. It's "Democratic Socialist". That is a Leftist ideology.
breaking news: in capitalism, you work for the benefit of yourself and by using your money to purchase goods, you also benefit others who can do the same with the money you've just given to them.
"National Socialist" is also a leftwing position then? Nazis belong to Holla Forums, not Holla Forums then, because of their name?
Do you intentionally ignore policies or do you not know how to tell the difference between privatization, nationalization, and collectivization?
fucking kek, no timmy you benefit your boss way more than yourself.
And I was thinking that Juche was a strain of Communism, but you learn something new every day. Is this the mirror meme of "the Nazis were left-wing"?
But anyway: I never said that everything would be peachy just because you had an ethnostate. There'd be no intranational ethnic conflict, but you could still have conflict if you declared war on your neighbors.
All I'm saying is that a multiracial population will cause problems above and beyond the problems you'd have anyway. Being multiracial is asking for trouble, but yes: you can fuck up, even as an ethnostate.
Well you would believe anything then, wouldn't you?
I was going to write a whole thing, but it's more concise and clear to give you an example: on Holla Forums, if you disagree with communism, you get banned. On Holla Forums, if you disagree with naziism, you get called a faggot. I don't give a fuck what you believe in – it's a free country, just because I hate your opinions doesn't make you a bad person who needs to be put to death, it just means you have poor taste – but if you're actively trying to take away my freedom of opinion, you draw my ire. Commies, among other groups, want to take away my freedom of opinion in favor of the world's most provably retarded groupthink, therefore they deserve to be put under.
no seriously, north korea has denounced communism in its entirety, instead adhering to ideas like national self determination and racial purity. Do you even juche or what faggot?
how? Your boss amassed more labour for him than you, so he has more labour to spend. Your boss, for instance, feeds, depending on the size of his business, anywhere between four to four hundred families. His labour, of which he has a fuckton to spend, goes to the benefit of many people.
That is why I don't personally consider myself a National Socialist. The term Socialism has bad connmotations, and WW2 ended 100 years ago. But the 1930's NSDAP believed in private property rights. The DPRK does not.
Liar. Holla Forums is only partly communist. It's clear you've never been there since a fucking massive amount of people are mutualist, market socialist, market anarchist, transhumanist, anarchist, or whatever else aside from just plain old communism.
Sad how you have to lie.
Sad.
I know that.
If you weren't so retarded you would know that their policies are absolutely unrelated to socialism. They even wrote off their ties, as inexistent as they were to socialism.
Prove that there is socialism in DPRK
The DPRK is built on private property rights, private property is property unowned by the people who use it, private property is property owned by another person. If the people of north korea owned their own workplaces and didn't have to suffer under their authoritarian regime obsessed with racial purity, north korea would be much different. closer to anarchist ukraine than its current position of being similar to red fascists like mao or stalin.
sure seems socialist to me
The government (The People) controls everything. This is Socialism in practice.
First off, you've come to the wrong place to learn the difference between the right and the left, 8/pol/ isn't right-wing in any meaningful sense, they just hate liberals because they hate everyone. If you didn't have SJWs, you weren't trying to censor speech and edgy humor, you weren't trying to exterminate white people and so on, most of these pea-brained chucklefucks would call themselves liberals and clap mindlessly to The Daily Show. You're just such massive assholes you've alienated an entire generation. You see Hitler in the lower right corner? You think anything with "socialism" in the name is right-wing? Come on.
To directly answer your question though, because leftism doesn't work, in any form, ever. Every left-wing system is doomed to collapse, we see the same story repeated over and over. You make emotional "arguments" about why systems are needed that only enfeeble the populous and make them dependent on the government. They become stupid, lazy, entitled and weak, and then what happens every single time? The money runs out. Without a system of economic growth your "great experiments" are not sustainable. Venezuela, Mexico, Sweden, the entirety of Europe, the Soviet Union, North Korea, the same thing happens every god damned time when any of your principles are adhered to. Power is cultivated in a small group who rule like tyrants while the populous starves and suffers, the country goes bankrupt, and it becomes a giant trash heap. North Korea vs South Korea is the best example of these. Communism created North Korea, Capitalism created South Korea. South Korea is one of the most modern, bussling countries on the face of the Earth. Yes, they had a recent issue with feminists, they were rooted out and arrested. North Korea meanwhile is ruled by an obese nutjob who recently made sarcasm illegal and claims to control the weather.
By every measure, the longer any tenant of leftism is in place the less happy people are. None of your policies are grounded in science or fact, they're all based on emotional arguments which can easily be disproved. The most stable, happy society is a conservative one, with a focus on the family unit, capitalism, tradition and conservative values. Read up on r/K selection theory.
Beyond that, pick a specific issue. A specific left-wing belief you have and I'll disprove it.
You're a very confused person.
Yeah, my labour, and my coworkers labour. He only "owns" our labour and our output (not his output, not his production, ours) because some faggot statist says he gets better right than us.
If by confused you mean "reads books unlike the school kids here" yes.
So was Stalin a right-winger too? He distanced himself from Marx's idea of a world revolution and advocated Socialism in One Country. Josef Stalin, Fascist. Dem Nutzies really are everywhere!
You should read better books.
because you'll be allowed property.
Stalin didn't support private property rights.
Centralized government is irrelevant, are Nazis leftists now too? Private property exists: the government profits from it. Distribution is irrelevant. Do you know what socialism is?
Do not speak about things you have no knowledge of.
There is a distinction between private property and personal property.
Oh right, I should read ayn rands story books (fiction) or hitlers diary lel, why would I ever waste my time with well respected philosophers like hegel and sartre? You're so right.
Slaves are a type of property but it's not necessarily something that brings freedom now is it?
What? A lie is a lie, simple as that.
Yeah, you sure proved me wrong.
and then he redistributes it to you and to everyone else he employs, redistributes it some more by purchasing whatever he needs for his company and finally redistributes some in taxes. What he doesn't redistribute will get redistributed later to his family or in a retirement fund, or what have you - even a Rotschild-style rich family spends money or labour.
Just because you can't see the bigger picture and are laser-focused on yourself doesn't mean your boss didn't deserve what he has. In fact, even if he inherited the business, that means some of his predecessors had heads on their shoulders and knew how to turn business. I bet the same could be said of your parents since they raised you. Will the same be said of you, however…?
There is no such thing as Hitler's diary.
And collective property, and intellectual property. It's almost like it's a complicated subject more complex than "all property = good" right?
Well you really want it to be a lie but what you want isn't always what's true.
It is a lie. But ok.
Amazing.
I have a dual degree in STEM but I'm sure that doesn't matter to you, right? We're all just neckbeards in basements with hypotheticals, which is totally not what communism is, that's definitely an ideology based on reality and hard evidence and accepting human nature.
This is why you guys are all retards. You can't see the smoke and mirrors right in front of you. "Public Property" always means government owned. Leftism is always going to result in the government stealing from you. And you will time and again say "not real leftism" as the trick is performed right in front of you over and over and over again. You guys are so stupid and clueless. Well I'm not gonna waste any more time here. Day of the rope can't come soon enough.
His mein kraft lets play he wrote down with all the non-scientific babbling and crying about kikes.
There's nothing wrong with socialism; it's just the natural extension of tribalism and cooperation to a whole nation. National Socialism was a healthy movement that revitalized Germany, even if it was corrupted by the industrialists. Feder and Strasser should've been responsible for the economic policy.
It's only Socialism™ that's shit, and by Socialism™, I mean the popular form of Socialism that consists of tranny rights, nigger colonization, anti-White agitation, and Jews in the State Department owning everything.
What a joker you are.
No your faggot ass tech degree means nothing to me or anyone else when we're talking about philosophy and economics, obviously.
Not an argument, as expected.
Socialism, as existed before you faggots came to revise the concept to appeal to the working class while still being capitalist lapdogs, has always meant a mode of production where production is managed by workers themselves and production is done for use, not profit.
Do you mean property or Property? You could have property in the Soviet Union in the sense of owning coats and books, it was just the factories that were nationalized.
Even so, that's a deviation from Marx's Communism, because the workers, in practice, owned jack shit. They were peons who were forced for work.
So was the Soviet Union not Communism by your lights? If so, then no country has ever been Communist or even Socialist in the Marxist sense.
You misunderstand. Socialism cares not for the nation, it only concerns itself with class interests. Of the international workers vs the international exploiters (most of which are jewish right now, but even non-jewish exploiters do the same things!), nationalism mixed with socialism is the failure of both the nazi party and the bolshevik party. They're more similar than either Holla Forums or Holla Forums would ever be willing to admit. They both got collectivism wrong.
Literally anything except communism where work becomes entirely optional by definition.
That wasn't the fucking point you goddamn moron, I wasn't saying "I have a science degree therefore my opinions are correct." The point was that you're sitting there from an entirely subjective standpoint claiming that anyone who doesn't fucking agree with you isn't educated on X, because if they WERE they would definitely agree with you, no questions asked, because there is absolutely no way you aren't objectively right. You think yourself enlightened and educated on just the right subjects to know more than other people, and those who disagree are obviously incorrect because they don't have the exact education and enlightened opinions as you do.
The fact you missed that this is what I was saying makes it pretty clear the stereotype of a leftist vastly overestimating their own intelligence is certainly true to a degree. You and your ideology really seem to have a penchant for attracting the idiots, faux-intellectuals, and faggots.
And no, no country has been communist, as a simple google search could tell you, communism is stateless, it's anarchist. State socialism is doomed and will never reach communism.
This isn't a
This is a "marxists betray the people and should all be shot".
Fuck marxists. Fuck stalin. Fuck lenin.
Kropotkin or bust baby.
everything will go to "the people" (the gov) which is a small set of elites who will decide how the fruits of your labour are spent.
this elite group will not only control everything.
there will be no leverage.
admittedly, i would prefer a much higher quantity of smaller businesses rather than these giant companies getting all cozy with the gov effectively creating a communist state of collusive elites benefiting themselves at the expense of the people.
listen.
the little guy only has the power of numbers and whatever qualities and possessions as a sum to leverage in order to secure their interests.
it's a power struggle.
only a good entity can make things right.
Well you clearly aren't education on these things. You're educated in different things which is very nice and I'm proud of you but it doesn't matter when talking about these things.
This is where the anarchists and the marxists disagree.
You can keep the marxists Holla Forums, please, take them, they fit your ideology better than the left, they've always been a black sheep.
Now, user, we both know that's not true. The maxim of Socialism is
Production is very much done for profit, it's just that the companies are run by the workers.
I wrote>>9790954. As much as I admire Hitler (PBUH), I'm not a Hitlerite who thinks we need to fellate IG Farben because they iz gud boys who dindu nuffin. In my eyes, finance capitalism and the rule of corporations are an evil that is as great as the Jew.
what will inevitably happen, though?
Well for one , if you "join" the" right side politics" you acquire a stronger conviction and stop being such a giant pushover bundle of sticks. We are on the internet here, i don't know you and what you can possibly offer to "the right side". It would be better if you reached that conclusion on your own through turning your brain on and using it for a second. And just so you know , right and left is a false dichotomy, try nationalist and globalist instead, it will give you more clarity. Also try >>>/pdfs/ . No more help, now start lurking. Yare yare daze.
No such thing.
For all those right-wing twats crying about Food, Starvation, North Korea and other nonsense, as a refutation of """" Leftism"""", have a copy pasta:
There were 2 communist elements to the USSR (which I must assume you're referring to): First the (failed) revolution, which was proletarian, and second the ideology, which was communist. The state itself was capitalist however, as every state must be, since communism per definition necessitates a stateless society. I'm going to bed now so I really don't want to spend another 60 minutes explaining basic communism to some libshit but maybe this copypasta will actually motivate you to read:
A selection of texts describing Russia as a capitalist state. English edition.
The Basics
- Why Russia isn't socialist sinistra.net
- An Analysis of Russian Economy marxists.org
- The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a Capitalist Society marxists.org
- The Nature of the Russian Economy marxists.org
- Doctrine of the Body Possessed by the Devil marxists.org
- The Spirit of Horsepower libcom.org
- Lessons of the counterrevolutions libcom.org
- State Capitalism and Dictatorship marxists.org
- The myth of "socialist planning" in Russia sinistra.net
- Eight Supplementary Theses on Russia (Dialogue with Stalin 1953) sinistra.net
Longer Texts
- Capitalism and class struggle in the USSR libcom.org
- The Marxian Concept of Capital and the Soviet Experience libcom.org
- State capitalism and world revolution libcom.org
Bonus Material
- The Incoherence of “Transitional Society” as a Marxian Concept marxisthumanistinitiative.org
- The Nonsense of Planning marxists.org
- Capitalism and Planning marxists.org
- Value and Socialism marxists.org
- Review: “The Revolution Betrayed” marxists.org
- Marxism and Russia sinistra.net
- The Revolutionary Workers Movement and the Agrarian Question quinterna.org
- "Left-wing communism, an infantile disorder" - condemnation of the renegades to come quinterna.org
- China: The bourgeois Revolution has been accomplished, the proletarian Revolution remains to be made sinistra.net
- "Proletarian dictatorship" and "socialist society" in the new Chinese constitution sinistra.net
- Mao's China, certified copy of the bourgeois capitalist society quinterna.org
- Theses on the Chinese Question quinterna.org
State capitalism is not a new form of economy nor is it a transitional form between capitalism and socialism: it is pure capitalism, and appeared along with all the other forms of monopoly in the period of the victory of the bourgeoisie over the feudal powers. On the other hand, the capital-state relation lies at the basis of the bourgeois economy in all of its stages.
Also, you don't convince a left winger to come over to the right by telling him "ohh, Stalin", but by telling him why your spooks are more important. Otherwise they'll just turn into neural liberal centrists, since that is the default ideology.
Also, learn some basics instead of falling for your oh-so politically incorrect hate of communism: libcom.org
Kropotkin will fall over once you introduce even one asshole into the system. Introduce one person - like yourself - who simply refuses to live in the status quo and works actively to ruin it. Now you have an asshole who works for no one's benefit, and you will sustain him until you've finally had enough and, at best, exile the unbeliever, or, at worst, kill him. And now you run on a spiral of further unbelievers who will argue that what has happened to him was unwarranted and slowly your society crumbles from within without a leader who will set the assholes straight.
Welcome to the human condition.
Nice try reddit outreach but you are still too obvious.
Communism cares not for the nation. Which is why it has always and will always fail, and always requires forcing guns to people's heads in order to work. National Socialism did care for the nation, and succeeded admirably.
Typo aside (lending further evidence to my claim), how do you know? You haven't the slightest idea how much I've read on the subject of economics and political structure, or on the philosophy of the nature of man and how that applies to self-governing or choosing leadership. This proves my point: you think I'm not educated on X because I don't fucking agree with you. This is why people think leftists are so insufferable, they put themselves on pedestals and simply cannot fathom that they aren't objectively correct in something.
Obviously this isn't going to be a fruitful conversation so this is the end of it, but you ideology will always result in misery, hardship, and failure, and yet even if you had hell on Earth slapping you in the face with "you caused this," you'd deny it to your grave.
...
The tankies and the nazis will make an alliance until they both kill the anarchists, then they'll kill each other, both the tankies and the nazis will lose, and it will be horrible global capitalism for everyone again. Because nazis are doomed to fail, marxists are doomed to fail, and everyone is doomed to fail as long as they keep perpetuating the flawed strategy of hierarchical control.
I'm talking about mein kampf you stupid fuck. It's a diary, and "atlas shrugged" is fiction. Neither is legitimate philosophy or economic theory.
He already covered this. Try reading the conquest of bread where he actually tells you exactly what will happen once one of your precious assholes comes into play.
Here's a hint: he'll be kicked out of the sharing group of sharing and told to go away
Oh how I wish I was still in high school too!
Yeah, these aren't horrible sources or anything. Dude, even Chomsky said he hates Marxism because it's a fucking religious cult. Cut the crap with this "no true communism" garbage. If your system can't exist that's more proof it's a failure.
Very compelling hypothesis, I assume you enjoy fiction?
There is no profit in socialism. Profit implies waged labour, which means there is a capitalist in the equation. Please read a book, this is embarrassing.
Every single one of these retarded hypothesis you idiots make come out of nowhere
People are not born with values. Values are ingrained as they become socialized. You are essentially postulating a magical case where someone appears with no reason in a system.
What else is going to happen except punishment you stupid moron? The same happens in every society.
Can you show me that country with no state, no money, and no hierarchy? Please. Go ahead and show it to me.
That or it is
I refuse to read fiction because reading is boring and I prefer television. Books are for learning, not fun. It's a bad way to see it, I'll admit, but it works out enough for me.
Hello? Books? Hello?
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Always the same shit.
Classical leftist parasite:
Hah, and then what - he'll simply accept he's unwanted and go away? Or perhaps he'll come back to make your lives hell for kicking him out? What then? Some lynching in progress? Oh, but then you aren't the saint system you wanted to be.
You, however, are implying that people ingrained with values always turn out the same, no matter what, in essence ignoring your own existence and how your values differ from other people. You are also positing that your system would be the only one present and no outsiders will ever come, which implies either you've removed all outsiders, or aren't within reach from the rest of humanity.
I dunno user, what happens to criminals who never get punished because society failed to do so?
Just to confirm, do you think that a country will ever exist with no state, no money and no hierarchy? Do you think it will be feasible or realistic?
it's centralization/decentralization of power.
there used to be little tribes. it all clumps together until global rule.
or.
it all falls apart due to conflicts of interests.
it's basic as fuck. it's PHL100 tier politics.
anarchism is just that decentralization which is what we were actively trying to do for a while, hence the snowballing of antiglobalist/nationalist rhetoric.
getgood.
Well, why didn't you just say that you're an anarchist?
Do inform me on the progress of your anarchist world revolution from time to time.
But seriously, I have nothing against anarchists… it's just that anarchism will never, ever work, for the obvious reasons.
Sartre is fucking shit, though, faggot-kun. Having read Existentialism is a Humanism, I can't even imagine what the fuck brings you to have such an anal fixation on him. I dunno who the fuck Hegel is, but your piss-poor attitude in every post you make and your already exhibited shit taste in philosophy doesn't incline me to look into him at all. Have you considered that being a fucking asshole to everyone at every turn in the hopes that they'll fuck off and "educate themselves" might not go as planned, Holla Forums?
Also, Sartre has two r's, dumbfuck. Don't act like an intellectual superior if you can't spell a name consistently right.
You'd suspect that an Anarchist wouldn't give a shit about anything else but their own. Why even fucking bother to post here or destroy shit on the streets.
I don't get them.
This is how I know you're projecting when you call people uneducated. Anarchism is lack of government, you cannot have an anarchistic government like you cannot have dry water. And yes, EVERY single fucking communist country has had a government, and yes, they have all used force to keep communism going. Who do you think the means of production belongs to? The people? No, the STATE. The state owns everything in a communist country, and is the central organization for determining what is produced, where, and where it goes, and who gets it, etc.
Christ you're embarrassing yourself, not only are you saying "not real communism" but you're also implying communist countries didn't use force to enact their will against the people and keep them in power, and further claiming you can have both anarchy AND government.
I have nothing to fear as long as my enemies are people like you.
communism doesn't work. socialism might work but only with a fully white country. iq is real and race exists.
Always the same shit.
"national socialist party"
Sad delusion or pure confusion?
At that point it couldn't be called a country but it actually has existed before. Check it out on google friend. We've actually had a few functioning societies without money.
Sure, if you want to know the current progress of anarchist thought look at the EZLN and the YPG/PKK, as for historical anarchists, look for the CNT-FAI, the ukrainian free territory, and the russian nihilists around nechayev's time.
That's just disappointing and kinda makes me sad. Hegel is important and not only to leftists but to the right too.
Good point.
Worked for me. I started spouting my ass off about lolbertarianism and other right wing things I thought I understood during my edgy teen years and getting my ass laughed at by serious people was enough to make me shut up. Should be enough for other people too.
lolno, anarchism is the lack of a state, not the lack of government. Don't you know the difference?
You refuse to do so
Nice comeback you idiot. You don't even know what you claim to support. Get fucked.
The state is the government you fucking retard.
aaand here we go, 233 posts and the first one to redefine a word! Nice job Holla Forums, a valiant attempt!
So a yes then. Completely unrelated but have people ever called you deluded before?
Like dude.
Here's some helpful wikipedia links for you if you really think anarchism can't have a government.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Alright you truly don't know shit. Fuck off.
I'm deluded because I'm entirely aware of things that have actually existed in history?
I'm sorry for paying attention to history? I'm sorry that things that have already happened are supposed to be impossible according to you. I'm sorry.
You like any jew just ignore people or shotgun on other shit when you're proven wrong, just stop posting because you only make yourself appear more retarded.
It's all you're willing to try.
Would you prefer I list books for you?
Nihilist communism.
Conquest of bread.
Wage labour and capital.
The ego and its own.
What is property.
The revolutionary catechism.
Is this good enough for you? Will you read those books and come back to me with a basic understanding, or no?
I raise you Merriam-Webster www .merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchism
Definition of anarchism
1: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups
translation: eat shit
I put my ad hom at the end so as to not distract from my point, which was that you have shit taste in philosophers, something that even the fledgling /lit/fag can infer from your posts. The fact that you think that philosophy is, has been, or ever will be anything other than subjective just adds to the already titanic pile of shit that is your opinion.
All I'll grant you is that this is some top-quality bait, but you're still a fucking faggot.
I'm genetically dutch lel, nice attempt to hide from the truth buddy.
Always the same shit.
You know what happens when a country of people choose a group of people to decide things and keep things organized, so that not everything is one enormous clusterfuck? That's a form of government. You know what that government is called, no matter the kind that it is? The state. They are one in the same. You cannot have anarchistic government, because there is no one to organize things or enforce rules other than some hand-waving "everyone will enforce things as they see fit!" magical thing that cannot ever work outside of a small enclave of 100 people.
You cannot possibly be fucking serious
I'm waiting any second now for you to pop out with "it's all a joke guys I was only pretending"
But you won't because you aren't
Hang jezelf kanker kop.
Well anarchists define anarchism by the terms in these books.
Get reading faggot since wikipedia isn't good enough for your lazy asses.
Unless the original anarchist writers were just wrong about the definition of this new idea they invented called anarchism, kek.
Kid. Kid stop it. Grow up. This is sad.
You
This was meant for you
It linked back up here
Well i, a Holla Forums user, define Holla Forums as retards. What are you gonna do about it? It's my definition, respect it.
GOVERNMENT IS THE STATE YOU IDIOT
Just pick up the book lad.
lel no it's not you retard.
i'm really at a loss for words here.
look, i will obey the orders of someone who knows better than me.
my dad? he knows how to build a chair?
i will follow his instructions and build that chair.
there's 700 groups in a company?
better hire some managers to keep the projects together.
unfathomable.
you guys may actually be better off as my slave.
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, we don't know you.
You don't need to outdox yourself but what leftist causes are you interested in, what do you care about, whats your background/life situation ?
It's hard to offer someone something when they're just an user.
alright then, humour us: what is the government, what is the state and why do you think your fagbait society lacks any
Yes, this is sad, but not in the way you think it is.
Haha holy fuck you're actually saying "no don't use this definition, it isn't the definition I agree with or want it to be, use this definition instead because it suits me." So a dictionary is a capitalist source of misinformation but wikipedia, a leftists controlled hellhole of injected opinions, is definitely NOT a source of misinformation or subjectivity, no sir, that is certainly a reliable source. You leftist faggots are always such massive hypocrites.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
...
You assume they know better than you just because they were born into power. Cuck mindset more or less. Just because someone is born to powerful parents that doesn't automatically make them smarter than you.
Government is what it's called when society governs itself.
The state is exclusive control of government and exclusive right to use violence.
Anarchism is government without a state. No state and no government would likely be hierarchical chaos, unrelated to the anarchist theory written down over the years.
So the founders of anarchism were wrong about it because you don't like what they had to say? Got it. You think you can rewrite history and you can't.
MK it not a philosophical text or an economic theory (and neither is NatSoc). Hitler was literally speaking to the common man in his words and he was motivating them, just as in his speeches. MK is about his youth and how he organized this movement and what goals they had.
As for
MK has ~ 250000 words and Jew or Jewish or Jewry is only used ~550 times.
"no"
Ahahahahaa, oh man, holy shit, my sides have gone and
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
uwot
are you 10?
PFFFFFFFFFFFTAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
motivating people =/= saying something smart
and in your society, the exclusive control of government and right to use violence is within the government, that is - you self-governing delusional fucks
kek, you're the utopian if you think people will just work against their own self interest forever and turn away in disgust at the opportunities of freedom they are presented with
Pffffthahahahahaa, oh god
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
No you just made that up lel
this for
...
Please nigger. Show me hierarchical government and intentional trade of unused property from one lion to another. I would gladly like to see the real lion king, the real lion prince, the real lion knights and their real lion clergy. I'm waiting.
here
oh, so you DON'T have a right to use violence in your society? Goodie, tell me where you live, I'll come down there and keep punching and raping until you finally break down and kill me
sad
sad
Did anyone see the goalposts? The appear to be mobile. ;^)
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
no, that's just a problem that occurs all the time.
it's not necessarily the case.
there are times when people actually do know better than me. many times regarding many things. that's why i scour the net for authoritative materials. but it's sometimes difficult to determine if it's deserving of this. that's why i look around a bit for different materials on the same thing.
people should be allowed to have inheritance, but there's tax, like capital gains, that cut into that.
i'm not really sure what you'd be referring though. there's different cases.
populism can solve it, though. it's very difficult but it can solve pretty much anything.
sad
Cause it feels right, right? Give me a very very long answer without appealing to emotion or tradition why they deserve it. Without appealing to morality too. We're building a society here, not a church, we need to know what works, not what makes the preppy rich kids feel happy and good about themselves.
what?
i get to give my shit to someone?
wow
sad
because you are a human who wants offspring and want to take care of your offspring even after you die
...
Pathetic. No wonder you're on here if you can't even understand the idea of subjective desire.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
> this thread still fucking exists
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
An ethno-state in the US would necessarily mean a lot of violence, most likely civil war. Alot of intranational ethnic conflict for the sake of escaping intranatioanl ethnic conflict. Not to mention, in capitalism, new identities are produced at the drop of the hat. You'd just replace ethnic conflict with some other form of conflict, and nothing would change.
When you leave school and enter the real world it's going to hurt. A lot. Nobody wants what you want, everyone wants something a little different.
you know, I'm starting to understand why leftists are so fucked in the head - they really do only think about themselves
Doesn't matter if what you're saying is "not smart" as long as it is the truth. You aren't going to convince anyone here with you rationalism bs.
Cuz 0.2% is so much.
Pathetic. No wonder you're what you are if you can't even understand instinct.
Oh, but instinct doesn't apply universally therefore its subjective and we should concern ourselves with those who do not espouse instinctual drives that perpetuate evolutionary fitness across generations!
Of coursh!
Pfffthaha.
i think it may be retarded.
He isn't saying you specifically, he's saying humanity in general. People want to have sex, have kids, and help their children be successful so the cycle continues. It doesn't mean people even consciously want this, it's simply a drive that humans are urged to fulfill in the vast majority of the population. This is a fact, it is an inescapable part of human nature. You're not even going to have a nation of anyone without people wanting to reproduce and take care of their own children, it's how we are biologically wired.
Anarchists weren't historically edgy nihilists, they were sort of Libertarians who wanted to live free from government interference and power structures.
It's only a historical curiosity, though. Today's anarchists are garbage.
He said he wanted inheritance because if one day he dies, and there's no one else in the household who works (be it their children are young or incapable), he should have the right to distribute his wealth and property to his offspring so they don't starve to death because they don't have any moneyz left. How did you distorting that so badly lmao
haha holy shit
Pfffthahahaha, dude, your toothless ad homs mean nothing because of the shit you're spewing - its like someone at the Special Olympics trying talk shit. Focus on your argument, because your insults are ass-flustered Holla Forums af tbh fam.
By the way:
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
yeah, it's just a will to decentralize power that has become too strong and imposing and perhaps retarded.
HAH! You think!?
That is literally your argument, yes! AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
>8ch.net
I'm actually on board with all of that, it'd go a long way towards trimming the fat without getting in the way of, for example, your local bakery.
we're beyond reasonable doubt at this point m80
let's add some nice flavor to this thread
Do you understand what the negation of negation means? Have you ever even read Hegel before?
Is this uneducated or just plain stupid?
Enjoy your torture chamber.
you left your ip on it, moron
PFFFFFFFFFFFTHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What have you done
Well… All of your arguments got shutdown and this thread devolved into a shitposting contest, it will probably be left up so the rest of us can laugh at your delusions.
Want to try again, commie?
Ah, it don't matter, it was clearly a proxy or VPN.
Bans are basically worthless at this stage unless you're a total tech illiterate - which I am, and I still post regularly despite the occasional ban from the mods when I start calling them faggots to their faces.
Just another day…
Feels good.
give me one good reason how slaving for an oppressive boss who contributes only his ownership of production and his right to steal the fruits of my labor and the state which protects his property and allows for his existence is more just than working for the good of a democratically organized community without hierarchy.
...
what in the fuck are you talking about
also, Hitler destroyed art that made him uncomfortable so I don't see what your point is
...
I was actually debating over the use of the word how or why, guess I chose wrong
350?
or
350,000,000
there are problems with that, yeah. the people try to sort it out by throwing shitfits every now and then. it's not perfect. it's not all or nothing either though.
You did lad, you did. Its okay though.
That said:
I hope that clears up how things aren't quite as cut and dry conceptually as you indicate - and before you sperg, believe me, I know its not as cut and dry conceptually as I indicated either.
Point being: The concept of 'democratically elected' is kinda… Sketchy in how you apply it here, as is the conceptual absence of hierarchy which you attempt to portray… Unless I'm missing your meaning somehow.
...
this guy basically nailed it , but since you're willing to go into your delusion and stop replying to legit arguments, I may as well pull it:
because it works
Maybe he doesn't steal your fruits of labour? Perhaps with the profit of last month he
-Has to pay the rent of the business
-Has to pay mantainance for the machines he possess (in a big business thats already lots of money)
-Has to pay the state taxes for his business
-Has to pay electricity
-Has to pay for that expensive computer network he might have for his other employees
-Has to pay to advertisement services to shill his product
-Has to pay his thousands of employees ( including you)
Or did you really think that the boss would simply embezzle 98% of the company funds for himself, and distribute the other 2% to the rest of his employees AND, not invest in the company? That's not how reality works, commie. It's harder than that
Well, fair enough.
However: How's the Zapatista war going against Mexico? How long will the YPG survive, after ISIS is defeated? The powers that be would smash these projects the moment they got dangerous, and they wouldn't have any trouble doing so because the happen in parts of the world the goyim don't care about. The Zapatistas will never take over Mexico, and if they did, the Necon-led US would stomp them in a month.
Why would you even use Holla Forums's word filters willingly?
This thread reminds me of Hitler's time in Vienna
Of course, but that's because of the structure of capitalism that this kind of system is necessary. Socialism intends to liberate humankind of this.
Everything starts somewhere, sometime.
I guess I can see where you are coming from, but its a very strange mindset to have, and honestly just seems like we're both using ideologically charged synonyms. I have problems with mine and yours, and you obviously have problems with mine, or else you wouldn't have changed the words.
Does living under an alpha make one less beta? What's the appeal?
Since I find that most hierarchies are unjust, especially hierarchies in which the only mandate is fiat of power, I obviously support democratic organization with an absence of hierarchy. I'm not sure what you mean by sketchy.
Basically, it seems your whole ideology is working with people who have already obtained power and solidifying their interests so they throw you a bone.
I replied.
In my experience, limited though it may be, I grant, that leaves a rather utopianist taste in my mouth lad. Its not a good taste.
Nothing is perfect, least of all humankind; and liberation, again in my experience, so often leads to its opposite… Not that I necessarily mind: It is the hallmark of the lesser man to believe liberty is most important.
Without duty, everything falls apart.
the path of man is liberation…. it doesn't take much historical analysis to notice this.
meant to say this to you
But how?? Regardless of economic system, your boss (or your commune) will still have to pay for the expenses of your business (or syndicate). Socialism will not remove those company expenses in the blink of an eye and it has been proven thousands of times that it never came near to fix them when Implemented. The commune will always have to pay for the rent of your company and now it will directly come out of YOUR pocket, instead of your boss.
youtube.com
A lot of left and right leaning rhetoric/policy is simply a tool of influence for the the deep state/shadow government.
There are ways around this without the exploitative profit model:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
However some lefties believe in any currency at all, however, I think in the early stages, some form of currency platform will be necessary
As already mentioned multiple times in this thread, read libcom.org
It's a short pamphlet that clarified all the misconceptions about the terminology, the theory and the goals of communist movements.
Not in the least.
This is your problem, right here, the word 'appeal'.
In this case, I assume you're employing a definition approximating:
There is no appeal. There is requisite. This hierarchical system is not there because its appealing, because its attractive or interesting (though it is, once you see it right), but rather because it is requisite to achieve that which is desired.
Hierarchy is natural law, that was the point of my alteration of your terminology, because you appear to have heavily dissociated yourself from naturalistic concepts - you believe yourself the animal who is more equal in its animalistic quality, and you are wrong.
More demonstration of the flaws in your thinking.
Again: Hierarchy is NATURAL LAW - there is ALWAYS hierarchy. Put two men in a room, one WILL dominate the other, simply by virtue of their traits - and if their traits are oriented such that they are approximate equals, they will content, contest, and compete for that effective rule of alpha in the inevitably emergent hierarchical paradigm.
In other words, amongst animals which are not equals, hierarchy is inevitable; and further, inequality is desirable, "unjust" though it may be, for that is the context via which evolutionary processes function.
Ie all hierarchies, in one form or another.
An object impossibility.
By definition, if democracy is transpiring amongst inequal entities - and, again, inequality is both inevitable and desirable - an effective hierarchy is formed. Wolf packs are, effectively, democratically organized… But there is always an alpha pair…. They may not be voted in by ballot boxes, mind you, but the unwillingness of other packmates to challenge their rule - for whatever reason - is equivalent to acceptance of a democratic paradigm, in that, if the pack ceases to recognize that authority and rejects an alpha, the alpha ceases to be an alpha, regardless of the traits via which it reached that position to begin with.
This gets very complex and abstract and its just kind of a clusterfuck at this point as is tbh lad.
Of questionable accuracy in application.
No, lad, my whole ideology is being the guy who throws out bones, because I'm the one who challenges for authority and wins. And its not merely my 'ideology', it is natural law, whether you or I or anyone else likes it or not (I actually do, mind you).
Frankly, and don't take this the wrong way, you reek of intellectualism devoid of naturalistic conceptual understanding - you view yourself, and your species, and the systems via which they interact, as some… I hesitate to use the word, but that's what feels most appropriate… ascendant organism, as though you have transcended natural law.
And nothing could be further from the truth. Thus, if you want my advice? Go (re?)read Origin of the Species, and examine animal behavioral patterns, inter-group social organization amongst variably organismal strands - you'll find what I say is largely accurate, that its not me defending what I THINK, its me detailing what I OBSERVE.
This system isn't in place because its appealing, in an individual present-tense manner, anymore than the pride structure or pack structure or school structure is appealing to the lions, the wolves and the whales - its that way because that's the way it must be, the way it will always be.
There will always be hierarchy - for natural law always wins, one way or the other. The more you fight against it, the more viciously brutal, the more savagely harsh, will be the responding action to re-establish the paradigm.
The path of man is liberation? Hah! I don't mean to insult, but that is truly laughable my friend user.
The path of man is survival. To survive, duty must take precedence - where it does not, societies crumble. When men become enamored with their rights, and discard their duties, well… As the saying goes: No such nation can endure.
socialism fails to account for humans being assholes. Who will produce all these wonderful goods you keep consuming in a socialist system? Who will work without compensation? Certainly not leftists, as proven by the retard who refuses to procreate.
hierarchies will form whether you like it or not, precisely because people have different world-views and opinions. Do you know what bullying is? Exactly that - a self-forming hierarchy due to the bully considering himself better than those he bullies. Violence is natural. You can't stop making people violent, and once violence enters the scene, governments start to form, as if by magic. Tribalistic governments ruled by a tyrant, sure, but governments nonetheless.
So you'd want to undo over four thousand years of progress in societal design, because you consider that to be fair? There were a lot of people like you before. The ones who actually attempted, they have one thing in common among all of them - they died young.
don't you just love that all of these "alternatives" are based on capitalism? Breaking news: once you get moral degeneracy, all these systems are vulnerable just like basic capitalism. Ethereum will be stolen, those who record Mutual Credit will use it to their own advantage, Local Exchanges will keep prized goods for themselves, Anonymous Trading too.
thank you
Holla Forums?
how far have we come?
Anyways mutual credit sounds like something the NSDAP tried or would have tried to implement after the war to remove the Jew from the currency ecuation. Doesn't sound that shitty, infact it looks semi decent when Implemented in a small scale, same for a local trade system
We've taken a few steps, while the stars wait above.
Don't get cocky kid.
...
there is no need to be upset
"Liberals & Conservatives NEED each other - Jordan Peterson"
youtube.com
"Jordan Peterson On Postmodernism"
youtube.com
Postmodernists don't believe in individuals, logic, or dialogue. It's a Marxist slight of hand that pits the oppressed vs the oppressor instead of the the bourgeois and the proletariat.
"everybody is the unconscious exponent of a dead philosopher" "It's not like any one given person is absolutely possessed say by the spirit of postmodernism, because often they're not educated enough to know all the details about what it is that has them in their grip, but if you get 20 of them together, and they're all 5% influenced by the postmodernist ethos, you basically have the spirit of the mob that's a mouthpiece for that particular philosophical doctrine"
Libcom and marxist.org are (among other things) archives for texts written by other people, in case you didn't know.
And Chomsky is referring to ML/Maoists sects , in case that wasn't obvious.
guess i'm an ethical theist then.
No, he's not lying. I've been banned for making threads exactly like this one on there. I've seen dozens of screenshot of others banned for the exact same thing. Leftypol is afraid of open discussion of their beliefs on their board for the same reason they are afraid of free speech; they know their ideas are incapable of standing on their own merits. This is why they call everything they disagree with "hate speech". Do leftists never stop to think about how virtually all of the corrupt evil corporations they hate, all of the media, Hollywood, the rich, elite and powerful are all on their side? How race mixing, white guilt/privilege, gun control and leftist views in general are being shoved into all entertainment, media, universities, etc with virtually unlimited funding? You don't see the irony in this? They're not rebels, they're simply going with the status quo because theyre afraid or incapable of thinking for themselves. They're lemmings, useful idiots, nothing more. Prove me wrong faggot, I dare you.
protip: requiring your opponents to read lengthy philosophical treaties if they want to participate in the discussion instead of informing them to the essentials of your argument is, at best, poor form and, at worst, grounds for a swift dismissal. If you can't summarize what you want to say in a few sentences it means you don't really understand what was said and prop yourself up on the ideological shoulders of others, since you are weak.
I will say you are by far the most lucid national socialist I've ever corresponded with on the internet, but I do not agree. I think do not think patterns of submission and dominance are the only means of conducting political behavior. Put two men in a room with one another and I don't think they will jockey for dominance, and if that is your natural reaction to solitary male company, I think you may have some deeper seated desires at play in your ideology.
Natural law as you describe it is not universal. I'd encourage you to check out Mutual Aid by Kropotkin, if you haven't already. It's at least as rigorously researched as Origin of Species, was written around the same time, and as a direct critique of Social Darwinism.
Inequal how? In physical strength? Democracy (not in its current form) exists to mitigate this through collective will.
The rest I don't feel like arguing because it is very late where I live, and taking this to its natural conclusion will make me late for class tomorrow. Thanks for the level-headed and pithy debate.
is the laborer not fighting for survival and his duty to the family he provides for by throwing off his chains?
again, do you know what bullying is? Hierarchies form naturally through violence and violence is natural, no matter how you slice it. You cannot remove violence from human nature, just like you cannot remove selfishness and greed from there. I guarantee you in a society of, give or take, 10k people, one of them would be capable and willing to just kill them all for fun. These utopian systems never account for that.
Typical idealist rightards
how convenient to ignore the last 200 posts of legit discussion, eh Holla Forums?
Not possible to have with idealist anti-intellectual fascists who come into it with bad faith.
OP left to go cry about it
>>>Holla Forums1606368
OP is a fag
>>>Holla Forums1606368
see
i didn't pay well enough attention to the thread to determine if it was worthy of it.
too tired and ill.
so what you mean to say is that >>>Holla Forums1606368 came here and didn't, in fact, find this whole huge discussion about the merits and faults of leftist/rightist systems? The last few hours were all but an illusion?
bad form, but no worries, nobody is forced to participate
Pretty simple.
At no point is it required, nor does anyone have to read all the "complex philosophical" text. People were diverting the topic, so he posted links where they could inform themselves about why they are wrong, meaning that the discussion could return to "why I should be a right-winger?".
i miss the old interwebs. Remember the concept of, wait for it, netiquette? Wow, that's an oldie
If someone isn't going to read answers for question, then why OP even asked ?
was meant for
?
...
oh i'm devastated and curious to know why this issue is more prominent than another.
Is that a joke? That's a hand waving defense for people to use when they themselves are incapable of defending their positions. If you claim to hold an ideology, and said ideology dictates this or that opinion is what you should hold, and I criticize that opinion, you don't turn around and point to some outside source and say "educate yourselves," that's you running from the argument. If you can't explain why you hold such an opinion, it means you seriously need to consider whether to keep holding it, as you cannot remember (at best) or cannot explain (at worst) why it is you hold it to begin with. Pointing to other sources is alright for supporting an explanation, but it is not a counterargument in itself. "This is complicated and I don't need to explain it so go read this and you'll see why you're wrong" is not only smoke and mirrors, it assumes the other person will come to the same conclusion.
There are more than enough answers in honesty in the thread. Hostile responses arise from an utter lack of effort on the part of OP, but there are still replies in good faith. You know what's bad faith/intellectual honesty? Pretending none of that happened so you can just call Holla Forums ignorant, unlike the enlightened person you undoubtedly are who certainly doesn't live in a hugbox like those Holla Forumstards, amirite?
Underrated post. Here's your (You).
This thread is now archived.
archive.is
So is OP butthurt.
archive.is
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it, as simple as that
Why the fuck do all debate threads with leftists get bumplocked? The point of these are to convince lurkers which ideology is the best capable of running society, not to convert the leftists themselves (although in that case it would still be welcomed)
Thread > 300 posts = bumplock
1. You're not the only person in this thread
2. It was already explained
But since you're so special, I'll give you a short and concise answer to the question "Why was the USSR and all it's clones (ie. what is called Communism) state capitalist".
Coincider the defining features of capitalism [0], an existence of one group of people which get most of their subsistence from engaging in wage labor, ie selling their time to get X money in exchange, and the production of commodities for exchange, ie. sale/profit and not for the direct use or the requirements in society. The fulfilment of these needs is a by-product. A further attribute that develops out of this is the existence of " private property ", ie. property I legally own but do not use myself, but pay others to do so. This is not a moralistic critique, and at first this doesn't have to be bad. It's certain better than feudalism and slavery, and as we all know thanks to this system, our society could become prosperous. This is all great, and nobody is denying this. (The problems are the internal contradiction within the system, which lead to the demise of the existig system, and have to be resolved, but that's a different topic)
Now look hat the USSR, they too had a small group of owners and operators that got to choose how the tools and resources were used, how much who got payed and what whs to be done with the finished products. The people they employed used their wages to buy their means of substance and reproduce their conditions, and thereby also the whold system. And contrary to popular opinion, private property still existed, but it was all the property of the state, and the state defended it with thier military. Maybe you remember the old critique, "Oh, communism [ie. USSR] is just like capitalism, the workers just don't work for their boss, but for the state, etc.". That's exactly our point too. The USSR was basically just one big corporation with an army and no competition. In all practical aspects, except of course their language and official ideology, they were just like the capitalist. They just had the additional benefit of being able to crush all uprsings or demonstrations against them, since they defended the "workers".
So, it this a good enough explanation, or will you go on accusing me of not knowing my theory?
[0] You might disagreed with this definition, since you might think of something else when you hear capitalism, but that isn't the point here. This is not a semantic, but a practical issue.
ah, so it's one of those >communism has never been tried fags. I'd post that one smuggie about it, but eh.
Now that you've posted this pretty sizable explanation, please enlighten us how, in a truly socialist/communist system, the workers are incentivized to work for the greater good. Can't be money! Can't be violence!
If you live in the U.S it will be a matter of survival, as the rest of your ilk in that country will be "white terror'ed" out of existence before long.
As a person that really thrived on the vitriolic discussion that happened between both extremes before halfchan exodus. I think that rather just expect to be magically convinced to switch, try to understand other people feels, ideals, and ideology. Try to see how YOUR ideas are bad to other people.
Obviously "They must be bigots, so they want to be close minded and things be unfun and not my things, and my minorities" isn't a good try at empathising. (see what I did? It isn't fair, isn't it? Why try not doing it?)
Learn how something wrong can be logical, and can follow certain reasons and provisions. Never act as if your opponents are idiots.
In the end, youre just human as the rest, Neither Lenin, Hittler or trump are different than you, and your 'progressive' ideology doesn't make you better than them. There are no shortcuts in dominating your internal monster, If anything, I would advice you to check if your ideology isn't providing you with a false sense of superiority just because it provides you with the comfort of understanding the "truth" of the world through consensus.
Any feeling of "this shouldn't be even be discussed" should be a big warning sign that you're doing something wrong.
Who then? The state should take all my things appart and sort them out to give it back to society? Should there be a public organism dedicated to do this sorting? Should there be an obligation to keep things tidy for this to happen?
Should I pay for this organism?
Who gets what when things can't be easily took apart? Who decides who gets what?
The problem with lefties seems to always reside here, they think there's actually a good answer to these question, or that they're trivial. Or they have answer that seem straight out of a dystopian story.
What happens if you give a memento to your daughter, can you do that? If yes, who draws the line between what is allowed inheritance and what's not?
If no, what are you giving me in exchange of this motivation to achieve greatness? Do you understand that you're not chiseling away the fat pigs but you're also chiseling away genius right?
this guy knows what's up, shame it's so late in the thread
when debating ideologies, you can't afford to ignore the other side's arguments on the basis of some imagined superiority. I would be hard-pressed to ignore the fact unchecked capitalism always produces an unemployed/poverty class, which boosts crime and so forth and so on. It is not a perfect system, none of them are. Lefties, however, shouldn't ignore where socialism leads with regards to government, as has been proven many times over. Their system is also imperfect. These systems are imperfect for different reasons however - capitalisms imperfections can be worked around while socialism is flawed in its essence due to human nature and no amount of tweaking and strongarming will change that.
You need to remember that there is no single answer for all of humanity's problems (except gassing the jews) - the search for a better system continues. For now, however, the right side of the spectrum seems to hold answers more grounded in reality, not imagination and conviction.
John Lennon was a disgusting faggot, but his song, "Imagine", serves an important lesson - this is your brain on leftism. This is what you believe humanity to be when "toxic ideologies" are stripped. And that's wrong, you retards, because humans are actually selfish fucking beasts who are tribal and violent in nature.
Feel free to refute the "muh not true Communism" argument. I'd just want to say that it's not a matter of "true" or "false" Communism, but it's just directly capitalism. You're trying to make a different problem out if by using the word "true", which is quite dishonest, thb, especially since you were just talking about the virtues of participating in a discussion.
And regarding the second issue, I see you have nothing but liberal memes to defend your position with - of course it will be "violence", in the same way it has been for all of human history - Communism is no exception. And as already proclaimed at the first international:
If a person capable of work doesn't work ie. contribute to society, he doesn't deserve to be protected and helped by society, this is nothing new or radical. If they can live by their own in the forest, no problem, but if they want to have to privilege of living among others in a society of cooperating human being, he has to do something for it.
But then again, I of course cannot give you any guaranteed knowledge of how this will look like, we're not Utopians after all. I can talk with the same certainty a serf would have talked about out times and how production/distribution will look like about Communism or the future im general.
Have I still to spoonfeed you, or will you start reading by yourself now?
So, you rationalized away failed attemps at communism as "capitalism". Fine. I can accept that to some extent, even if I still think you're wrong, even if its for very different reason most people here would.
However. You do understand that any revolution will have casualties.
Tell me then.
What's going to be different the next time? Because it seems all communism attemps (at least those that are performed at great scale) tend to devolve quite fast into what you call "capitalism" (a particular, brutal, dictatorship that you decided to call capitalism, fine).
This is a very important question, since, why even start a revolution to destroy the evil capitalism if you still get the evil capitalism (plus everyone killed in ideological purges, everyone killed in the change of class, etc)
I don't even ask you how that society will work, I can understand you don't know how the utopia mechanisms will work. I understand no one knows a perfect system, and we're just rambling about what we think to be better or worse.
My question here is simple, I'll repeat, and further explain. Given history: How do you make sure the communist attemp doesn't get coopted by greedy, ambitious, psychopats and exploit the concentration of power that a revolution, and communism would get, at least for the beginning? Do you understand that the score is QUITE QUITE high in the failure department, right? Even if the end result is not communism, pulling the trigger while screaming communism seems to not be getting any decent results on any big community.
To clarify, with "violence" I am referring to social forces that make people do or not do things in day to day life too. This also includes the threat of violence, as everyone knows how they will be punished if they commit a crime within a society, regardless of what they think about the law. I am not talking about slavery, ie. forcing people to work by the threat of violence, and giving them only so much as to survive. That's a different system of production.
All in all, stop having such holy ideas about Communism, you think better of it than Communists do.
I wasn't accusing you of not knowing it, the entire point I was making was that no one, at any point in a discussion or argument, should point to some large source of information and say "you're wrong because of this information, go read it and see why." It defeats the entire point of a discussion or argument in the first place, and so saying such a thing without any kind of accompanying explanation or argument is not only counter productive but also condescending, and as I mentioned can be used to escape from having to defend your position. My point wasn't that you don't know X necessarily, but that saying "go read X and educate yourself" is not a defense or argument in itself and shouldn't ever be used like that.
Now, onto what you actually stated:
Yes, and those people were the government. People like you who think government is separate from "the state" don't understand that "the state" are fellow citizens appointed by the rest of the country's people to keep things organized and operating smoothly. Anyone responsible for operating or organizing things on a national or municipal scale are a form of government, and are a part of the state.
Communism is the idea that everything everyone does or produces belongs to everyone equally. The idea that there can be no state, only "the people," in a nation of millions is not possible. You cannot successfully function, and cannot defend a country, without having organization. Organization needs to be centralized to a certain degree, or it isn't really organization at all, and it all becomes chaos. Your ideals are nothing that is realistically sustainable and always results in failure.
You basically have a catch-22 here: either all those "communist" countries have utterly failed and crashed to the ground because communism is unsustainable and destructive, or (if you go with communism has never been tried) your ideal, which has been around for more than long enough, cannot ever feasibly be put into practice. If true communism has never been tried, it's been around this long and so many attempts have been made to put it in place, then what does that say about the reality of creating "true" communism? If you haven't managed to form true communism yet, you're never going to, because you cannot and do not identify the realities of human nature that keep "preventing true communism" from forming.
Not the guy you're replying to, hope you don't mind me contributing.
Government can be entirely voluntary and indeed not exercise force, in this case it is merely a method of organisation, like administration. What differentiaties it from the state is that a government is not unjustified authority (unless it forms part of a state, which it can).
No. In Communism, you use the comunally owned social means of production in order to make products that you yourself own. These products which you make belong to you, nobody is forcing you to give them up. They are personal property. If people were forcing you to give them up, it would be forced appropriation of labour, which isn't too different to what's going on in capitalism right now.
A lot of organisation in the modern world isn't centralised, such as those done by countries. You may want to have a network of such organisations, but I don't think central control is needed, at least not on a large scale. Market socialism is an alternative to economic planning (though I am slightly in favour of enconomic planning myself). There is also decentralised economic planning.
Which ones?
I wouldn't say it's "rationalizing" them away, but what I'm doing is not the issue here, as long as you understand what I'm trying to say.
And of course I understand that revolutions aren't victimless, for that reason I personally prefer strategies making the revolution a meme "formality", ie the quick and more or less painless shaking of of the old capitalist shell, by already preestablishing the conditions for socialism before a revolution. And.addition upside to this is that if it fails, nothing had to change, and people don't get to make the excuse of "dealing with it after the revolution". But that's just side info, in case your curious.
First, there was practically just one "successful" socialist revolution, and that was the October revolution, 100 years ago. All others (at least the prominent and successful ones) were always done in cooperation or with some connection to the USSR, after it already "devolved", meaning thay they reproduced similar structures like in Russia, expanding the influence of the eastern block. Most of the times revolutions also cooped the positive connotations people used to have with socialism/Communism and connected them to a fight for national or imperial liberation, see Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, etc.
Also, I wouldn't say "devolved" into capitalism. Considering the circumstances even the most honest and willing revolutionaries were given to deal with, they had no option.
A quote from the article I would urge you to read
It was, to use the old term, historically inevitable.
Again, I haven't decided to do so, that's why I liked the articles to show that it wasn't just "my" position.
And regarding what has changed, first we have freed ourselves from the Soviet claim to the word "communism" as a legitimization for their dictatorships (what's left is the free ourselves form the US claim over the word as a symbol of evil), but the more important part is already mentioned in the article:
Please forgive me for the quotes, but I'm writing this now on my phone (inb4 irony using a phone), and it's relatively slow and old which makes typing a bit annoying considering the style and ammount of writing.
Just a note, we never talk about "evil capitalism" when discussing theory. Anarkiddies at antifa might do that, but they're barely the representatives of communist theory. We say that capitalism has internal contradictions that will eventually lead to it's demises. Socialism aims to resolve these contradiction, and is so to be regarded as then system that sublates capitalism.
I believe I've answered your question to a good enough degree. If you also take the strategy I mentioned into consideration, I belive we have a much better position to succeeded, if we can trust the people thay they want it. And for that to be true, we want to inform people, and educat them on the issue, and then organize them, in a as peaceful (but of course not totally, sadly) way as possible. No jews involved.
Side note: Communism is a revolutionary, but not necessarily a radical movement. True, it wishes to restructure the basis of society, but I like to say that my goal is modest, I just want communism, ie. a system that produces for use not profit. I belive most people would agree with me on this too, there is absolutely nothing radical or incredible about this. And there doesn't have to be.
the (You)est you ever made. Good job sir.
Use for who and what motivates it?
That sounds like splitting hairs. The state is the government, and its authority is justified by the people putting the government there. If anyone anywhere governs in some capacity, they are a part of the state. Additionally, how do you determine whether authority is "justified?" If some man kills my daughter, I might feel like I'm justified to kill him, but his wife might feel justified to kill me. Each of us are too biased to care about seeking the truth, and what gives the "government-not-state" any authority to do anything about it, or NOT do anything? It all seems horribly subjective, you cannot trust people to rule themselves, because that is mob rule, and anything predicated on mob rule always becomes an oppressive witch-hunting environment of surveillance and backstabbing.
So I need to travel to various factories and farms to produce something myself in order to own anything? Why can't I simply pay someone to do that for me, and if I can, what makes that different from capitalism? Why can't I render a service to someone, who pays me for the work done in that service, and I can then use that money to buy a chair from a carpenter, rather than having to learn carpentry? Humans are not interchangeable cogs who are all exactly the same with equal skills in everything. Am I allowed to buy things or not? If I'm not, that doesn't sound like a very liberated environment, which communism is supposed to be; and if I can, what makes this free market different from capitalism?
You misunderstand what I'm saying here, centralized doesn't necessarily mean "held in one location" in this context, it means you have one or two groups of people making decisions for a much larger group of people. Those organizations in turn will either need a further centralized group to keep them organized, or they need to have regular meetings in order to remained organized between themselves.
Whichever ones prevent "true communism" from forming. Whatever these things are doesn't matter and isn't the point, the point is that people who argue for communism are stuck in a catch-22. You have 2 options given how the last 150 years have turned out:
1) All the previous communist countries were actually communist in point of fact, and as such, because they crashed and burned so hard, we can certifiably say communism is a failure
OR
2) True communism has never been tried, and since that idea of communism has been around for a long time and a large number of people know about it, if it hasn't arisen by now, it won't and/or can't, because the very concept of communism is infeasible and unrealistic and impossible to actually create, which is WHY it's "never been tried"
The actual qualities of human nature that stop true communism from forming don't matter in context of this argument, the point is that this "true communism" you speak of can't ever form because every time someone "tries," it goes horribly wrong each time, which means execution of the idea is inherently flawed.
Literally the people. And with literally I mean not some mysterious people the Stalinist ruler legitimizes his claim to power, but the actually existing people. How this will be done, I sadly cannot tell you. Will people live in small communes cooperation between each other? Will we use extensive computer aidid planning systems, that recalculate produced every second depending on sensory data? I don't know, and for all I can tell it could be something entirely different.
And I am conscious of how this sounds. It makes it look like I'm trying to avoid the question, but all I'm doing it being serious. Nobody can answer this question exactly, or predict the future. Maybe different parts of the world will use different systems, for all I can tell you.
I can agree with this… desire, to certain extent, however I don't see how it could be implemented, this seems to me like the utopian part I told you didn't need to tell me how it would work.
Let's suppose The revolution happens as peaceful as possible.
Let's suppose You find a way to ethically or unethically indoctrinate (or use a more conforting word if you will, like educate) people using their own tax money into going into communism. Let's assume you have all generations needed to do this change, having a guarantee that people will not wander back into "capitalism" through democracy or dictatorship.
Now, I don't know if you think there's a reasonable way to accomplish such change, or you're just arguing society should search for it. Or what.
The means of production now are communally owned.
1) How do you make sure that people don't exploit the system accidentally back into capitalism. Do you understand that as long as there's private property (which you claimed, communism would have) I could still produce things of value, and I could convince other people to work into things in exchange of that value.
Do you understand you could reach the same situation as before (people being expropiated from their work), but now the means of production could be communally owned, which in some interpretation could be even worse, since the rich speculator might not even need even need to fully pay for the machines?
Nightmare mode: Any solution proposed to this shouldn't limit freedoms or create an insfraestructure of regulatory bodies that can be corrupted.
2) Can you explain a little bit how technological progress would be made? I'm not saying government can't make technological progress, but certainly having both government and private companies gives a boost that manages to cater to everyone to certain extent, even if its has its own dangers.
In your slighly tame definition of communism, this isn't exactly something that should be particularly different, but still I would want to hear what you have in mind.
3) It could be argued that thanks to democracy we don't live in any kind of extreme. This might be a capitalistic society, but it's not a "true free market". I (personally, I don't represent anybody) think that true free market, would be an extreme that I wouldn't like to endure, at all. This is a result of democracy, extremes, pure ideas are practically impossible on a democracy on the long run. Because the impoverished, the weak, seek change in stagnation…
So… how would you suggest that your communism gets to remain pure on the long run? Should democracy be suspended? Should a constitution be formed making sure communism is hard to revoke? Any ideas?
Nice speech. Here's a (you).
I'm the guy you were replying to, and I just wanted to give my take on this specific part
I believe that you are ignoring or at least not appreciating the historical factor when your looking at the last 150 years. Keep im mid that at least 80 of these years, the term itself has been abused by the USSR (to legitimize their existence with the "good, libratory side of Communism") and the US (to demonize their opponents for political/economical influence, associating it with "evil Russia & co."). So whenever people think about Communism, they are basically at firsr stuck betwee these two interpretations. And this even was (and still is) a problem for communist organisations, following the lead of Russia, China, etc. playing right into this confusion.
Then for the rest of the active movement of communist (ie. Marxist or anarchist) organizations we have always had strong opposition from existing parties, and this is no surprise. In Italy, France, Germany the revolutions were all crushed. On Spain the civil war was lost by the Republicans. Fascists (ie actual fascists, I'm not just throwing the term around) rose to power to stabilize and manifest existing power relations (→ "conservative revolution"). And this all makes sense, as already mentioned, since the bourgeois, or should we just say the "elites" have a active interest in maintaining the existing relations.
But this doesn't change the fact that capitalism is in constant crisis, a feature that seemingly defines it. Unemployment is rising, the rich-poor divide is increasing, people are afraid for their future, their children will probably not have better standards than they have now, politics is getting more and more intense, wars are breaking out are refugees are fleeing all over the place. Obviously, something isn't right. Some say jews, others say refugees, and again others say it's all the Russians. Our proposal is that it isn't an external enemy, but the product of the system itself. And in this sense, either we all collapse with the system, or we try to save it by transforming it with a revolution.
So if you're right, and we are in a catch-22, then there isn't much hope for humanity from my point of view - but maybe I'm just being top dramatic, and personally I do home I am.
Anarchists and Marxists define the state differently to each other, and they in turn together define it differently to others. The general leftist point of view is that government, centralised or not, is a form of administration, not an entity which claims a monopoly on usage of force. Like a council, or something like that.
There are two types of justified authority in my opinion - that of expert advice, and that of the guardian.
"Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer. For such or such special knowledge I apply to such or such a savant. But I allow neither the bootmaker nor the architect nor the savant to impose his authority upon me. I listen to them freely and with all the respect merited by their intelligence, their character, their knowledge, reserving always my incontestable right of criticism and censure. I do not content myself with consulting authority in any special branch; I consult several; I compare their opinions, and choose that which seems to me the soundest. But I recognize no infallible authority, even in special questions; consequently, whatever respect I may have for the honesty and the sincerity of such or such an individual, I have no absolute faith in any person. Such a faith would be fatal to my reason, to my liberty, and even to the success of my undertakings; it would immediately transform me into a stupid slave, an instrument of the will and interests of others." (Bakunin)
All rule is mob rule, it's just that the state does not call its own rule as mob rule.
That, or you can agree voluntarily with other workers to exchange a certain amount of your product for their product. Or you can make your own means of production closer to you, or if you don't want to share it, make private means of production.
Capitalism is not simply "i'll pay you to do this", rather it is a mode of production subsisting on private ownership of social means of production, capital accumulation, defence of private property, and the primacy of wage labour. The worker may not realise it, but the moment that you pay a worker with a wage to complete something for you, in order for you to sell it, that's exploitation[0].
I can't see why not, though exploitation is frowned upon, and ideally people would know in such a society to recognise exploitation and free themselves from it. The point of Communism is to bring about the conditions in which it wouldn't make sense to employ wage labour, i.e the conditions which create wage labour as a necessity are rendered obsolete or impossible. Part of this process is communal ownership of MoP.
I disagree with this idea, I am against someone making decisions for someone else, except in the cases of guardianship as is the case with someone below reasonable intelligence, most importantly children (even that is up for debate).
They were not stateless, the MoP was not owned by the workers, they were not moneyless and there was still unjustified authority and wage labour. Not Communism, or even Socialism.
This is faulty logic, at best based on an informed assumption. But it does not declare the impossibility of Communism or other leftist strains of thought such as Anarchism or Communalism.
No, you have to link these failures specifically to the theory of Communism before you attack them as one and the same, and again it does not rule out other leftist modes of organisation or variations within Communism such as distributed planning, or even a more intelligent form of economic planning (the 5 year plan was a terrible idea). This is simply how logic works; you're trying to dismiss a whole field of research since after the collapse of the USSR without good reasoning to do so. Modern Marxists and other leftists are constantly identifying what went wrong and how it can be improved.
Capitalism suffers from internal contradictions and must, as all previous methods of production, collapse.
Besides, Marxists believe that Communism is inevitable, as part of the theory of historical materialism (though I am not informed enough on this topic to support it at the moment).
[0] marxists.org
users.wfu.edu
Communism does not require that people are born equal or with equal ability. In fact, many profilic Communists including Lenin have attacked this strawman.
naturalistic fallacy; I suppose we're also driven to fling shit at each other and show others that we're doing it. Please upload your shit-flinging video, it's only natural.
I'd rather acknowledge them and surpass them.
The goal of Communism is not to make man prefect.
Nobody is claiming that they are inherently irrational; rather, they should be subject to the constant assault of empirical observation, evaluation and deconstruction to verify their validity and usefulness to humans. This is why you wash your hands, for example. It is also how we know the mass of the earth etc.
They are not smashed because of this, Communism is the bringing about of a new organisation of society, free from all previous conceptions of rights, justice, the family, nations, freedom and everything you think you can say is fixed about society.
Humans have demonstrated the ability to. Read Kropotkin.
For what use? What motivates them? And who is the people? Is it everyone? If yes, how are you going to satifiy everyones needs with limited amount of resources? How are you going to implement it even remotely? How are you going to make it stable? How are you going to deal with potential differences? How are you going to deal with antisocial elements?
If no, how are you going to determine who will be part of your community? With a small community how are you going to max efficiency? How are you going to deal with other communities?
go the fuck back.
Not the guy you were replying to.
Motivation to do what? To work? If you don't work, you have to rely on charity, which may be nothing at all. But if you do work, you keep the value of your labour.
The workers, people who produce value.
This has different answers depending on the method of organisation. I'm not here to back up any particular one (market socialism, centralised planning, decentralised planning, labour vouchers etc.) but generally the workers occupying a certain area will set up a voluntary council where the workers decide democratically for what the resources will be used for; generally this will tend to fulfilling basic social needs first.
By making and using efficient machinery.
Preferably in a peaceful way, for ideally the land should belong to all the workers, not just a dispersed number of committees. The aim is to avoid setting up private property, which is one of the problems with capitalism (Proudhon talks about this).
Regarding the first issue, I'm pragmatic. If capitalism were to truly flourish, even under Communism, then we are condemned to it. But personally I'm more optimistic, and I think of this question just like when people say "what's preventing feudalism/slave societies" from returning? There is no necessity, and I'd imagie that people wouldn't be interested im returning to these old systems. One has to remembered, the defining featured of the proletarian or worker in the general sense of the word is that the has no other choice but to sell is labour to a capitalist who owns the means of production, and pays him back a part of what he produced. This precondition for capitalism doesn't exist anymore, and I suppose you were still subconsciously thinking about efficiency or productivity in the capitalist sense, ie for itself and not for production.
The second point still has this government presupposition in it. Communism, or what we're talking about doesn't have a government in the alienated and distance sense as we think about it. It it even exits, it's entirely democratic with instant recall, etc. but that's just a side issue. Also, don't fall for the market government dichotomy people like to reffer to.
But innovation don't necessitate a market. People have innovated and invented stuff before societies even existed in any common sense notion. That's ultimately what brought about society. But now we of course have different kinds of problems we're dealing with, and again, I can only guess. Will communities decided to put their resources together to fund research? Or will it be done on a per-workplace level? All I know, is that we can say that there will of course be research, and then again for things people need or want. Compare that the modern companies investing into masses of money into advertisement, trying to convince us to consume more than we would naturally do. I consider this not only wasteful, but harmful on a higher degree for other earth but also our psychological wellbeing.
My position on the last issue is like on the first one, I'd just like to emphasise how important democracy, free spech and other human rights such as, among others, education are for this project. This is a continuation, and is built up on the ideals of the enlightenment. Democracy shouldn't be suspend for dictatorship or anything else of that kind. Ultimately it depends on the strategy one commits to take, and which one this will be remains to be seen.
I sadly have to go now, but if you want to continue the discussion, which I feer won't be possible in this thread, since it's anchored, send me an email, and I'll glady continue the discussion. Other than that Holla Forums has people which are far more educated on the particular positions than I am, and they'd gladly answer your questions if you ask them honesty.
Thanks a lot for the nice conversation, and I hope I could show you some new ways to think about the issues.
good post, did you get here via the thread on Holla Forums?
Can you pleace expand on this im not really following.
"Our" proposal is that it's an all-encompassing enemy which spreads a mindset that surrounds all things. There is no doubt that capitalism has caused endless misery and made it possible for these people to get a firm grip of the world. Communism is no different. You aren't going to change anything by "doing the opposite of capitalism". You will still be trapped on the same plane. What you need to do is to leave the plane entirely.
Capitalism wants mindless consumers and communism wants mindless workers.
Many communist seem to think we are arguing on economic theories and principle which is not true. Economic has its place but it's not the underlying factor of disagreement. Economics can only be derived based on a weltanschauung and there is where the disagreement is.
UNLEASH THE GREATNESS
Everything. Work, create, sacrifice etc.
Who is a worker and what is value?
What happens when their is no more resource in that area?
I was thinking more in terms of logistics and organization.
What im getting from this is that it's not possible to have small communities because that will end up with something that is similar to private property and that will lead to conflict. So how are you going to organize this, quite frankly, massive task and how are you going to convince everyone of this idea and make it stable in the long run? And that brings us back to motivation.
Yep, you've got a nice little label for it. That means you've refuted it.
Maybe not, but it does require that we're 100% nurture and 0% nature. That's the big idea of communism: we'll make a better society, which will make better people, who will be able to make an even better society, which will raise even better people, and so on, all the way to heaven-on-earth. This is where you get the New Soviet Man, and it's why it's so important for you to have nice buzzwords to dismiss human nature.
I don't see you acknowledging a damn thing here (naturalistic fallacy! shit flinging!), and when I look at history, I don't see anyone surpassing these drives either.
Your answer is a link to some quantophrenic nonsense and not a word of your own? Clearly I'm supposed to be dazzled by the math (which I doubt you understand at all) and accept that it proves I'm wrong about the LTV. Nah. I was an econ major, I know what a garbage pseudoscience the whole field is. The only worthwhile model it has produced is Ricardian Comparative Advantage, which is easy to understand, communicates a real insight, and is impossible to mistake for anything but a grossly simplified model. Your paper there is none of those. The Labor Theory of Value fails because all labor, even all labor that takes equal amounts of training, is not equally valuable. I can spend an hour painting warhammer figures, and I can spend an hour changing people's oil - one is worth quite a bit more than the other. Yes, you can multiply my hour of labor by a coefficient to take into account training, rarity of the skill, social usefulness, or whatever you like, but then you're no longer simply using labor to determine value: you're laundering it to produce the answer you want. Also, some things are obviously valuable but take no labor at all as inputs, such as mineral resources in the ground.
Jesus Christ, Holla Forums. Humans have demonstrated nothing of the sort. We're done here.
naturalistic fallacy; I suppose we're also driven to fling shit at each other and show others that we're doing it. Please upload your shit-flinging video, it's only natural.
You're misusing the attribution of naturalistic fallacy. Afaik, isn't a naturallistic fallacy when someone is said to be the correct way because it's the naturallly ocurrying way. Rather than when you say "thinks are happening this way because this naturally ocurrying phenomenom"?
For example, If I say "things fall because of gravity", It isn't a naturallistic fallacy. However, saying "Since things fall, it's natural for man to remain grounded and those who try to fly are commiting a sin".
Now, I can understand how his post could be contribed as the second, but It's my impression, that it's much more of the first one.
We're driven by emotions, we're tribal, we're scared of ideas that can destroy our worldview, we're petty, and we're violent.
We're also generous, we're also friendly, we're also peaceful, and we're creative.
The thing is, this is true, and any society you design, will have to either work around this stuff or supress it in any way. Nurture has ashare of its blame, but not all of it.
So. It's not a naturallistic fallacy to question communism of the basis of several human naturally ocurric qualities, be it ambitions, desires, flaws, feelings, that would simply get in the way of mantaining a communist system in place.
Just saying.
Don't have time to go into your whole response, but in chapter 1 of Capital Marx makes the distinctions between socially useful labour and useless labour, that labour which is useless is not labour at all. Painting your own figurines is actually private labour, which is not commodified, thus not covered by the LTV. LTV also only covers reproducible commodities. The LTV in the Marxian sense is much more complex than "hours = value", and if you don't want to call it the LTV (of which it is a variant) then so be it - call it the Marxian law of value or whatever. The point is that its core thesis does correlate with price-values of commodities, at least from what I've read. Even if you reject the LTV you can go the post-Keynesian route about exploitation. But the LTV is far from "btfo" as neolib/keynesian economics professors would have you believe.
dreamscape.com
eprints.gla.ac.uk
These are not commodities and have no value. They have use value, but no value. Again, literally all covered in the course of about 2 pages of the first chapter of Marx's book.
Humans of all "tribes" have managed to work together, and in fact in various institutions they still do. Not surpassed completely, but a damn good effort has been made, and to be honest, that's all that's required. You don't need to have special feelings at heart to get along with other people.
I agree, though I don't think that there exists a natural element of humanity, at least one that is not surpassable (and has been to some extent today) which rules out Communism. I have to admit that I'm not well read on this.
That post gave me cancer.
Seriously who reads shit like that except pseudo intellectual faggots?
Typical jewish word salad that seems to say a lot while actually saying nothing.
I'm not saying they're not surpassable, I even admit they would even be repressable.
The thing is, There's already people on the left thinking we should do hormone therapy on men to make them have less testosterone, you know, because equality.
The question is, if nature is in the way, how much important is your "project". What is the point where you think indoctrination, therapy, supression, is permissible, and what do you think the limits are.
Let's assume everything in human's nature can be repressed with nurturing. Do you understand that nurturing on its own, can be opressive and hellish right?
What happens if some problematic trait requires you to be behind everyone for the rest of their lives?
What do you think about eugenics? What about diversity of opinions? What happens if the liberty to speak certain opinions is problematic for the regime?
Human nature is not an impossible problem, but the whole point is that it is a big problem. Any system you put in place has to be built thinking "If an asshole got into power, how could he abuse this? And what measures would be there to stop him" while at the same time keeping enough space for them to feel a certain degree of freedom.
Capitalism is not perfect, that's why we've got anti-trust laws.
For communism to work, you don't even need to understand why capitalism fails, you have first to understand how communism fails, and build around it a good explanation on how you would solve it, because this is the first thing people will think about when you tell them about your ideas.
The biggest problem of communism isn't even resource or management-wise, we have machines and automation for that… the biggest problems are humans, and fixing them without making a dictatorial distopya is the hardest problem of all.
