Anyone who has studied history can see that in periods of capitalist crisis, the far-right gains traction by: - Firstly, having the image of being "anti-establishment" (despite often being about as close to the political establishment as they could be - see Trump or Farage for examples; not members of the traditional political elite, but members of the global finance elite) - Secondly, providing simple and easy answers to people's perceived problems (e.g. immigrants took your jobs) which in fact fail to address the real root cause of these issues (in this instance, global late-stage capitalism). These "solutions" are over-simplified, and frankly incorrect, but they gain a lot of support because they are easy to understand, easy to repeat, and play into a long history of such attempts by the right-wing that they already exist as ideas beneath the surface of the population.
The first issue is not what I want to discuss here. The revolutionary left is anti-establishment too, obviously, and I don't think that's our biggest concern.
Our biggest problem is that our ideas, while being correct, are thus a bit more complicated than the usual pol-esque "solutions" to problems. We need to find easy and quick ways to simplify our ideas so that they are still correct, still conveying what we want to convey, and still sticking to our ideological principles. Thoughts?
Max Stirner, Marx, Bernie Sanders, Anarchy, Socialism, etc. Thats how.
By turning the id pol liberals into real socialists/anarchists. We can't recommend Das Capital because that book is too hard for the general public, other books by Marx should be good.
Movies, documentaries, etc.
Basically we have to grow & this is the time to do it because people are pissed & they're going to hate Trump even more once he gets in office.
When they are not in power, they are leftists with an extra edge. When they get in power, they snowball towards far-right.
In a way, Holla Forums-type reactionaries are much much closer to actual communist revolutionaries of history than the people around here. That's why they actually have chance at winning and why the results will be just as devastating.
Hell no. The last thing the left needs is more clueless idiots. One should only be a leftist if they actually know what they're talking about, aka read a fucking book in their lives.
You mean in that they are a mass of reactionaries going with the tides? In a way. But communist revolutionaries of history aren't the same thing as the masses. The masses get agitated, educated and organized by the revolutionaries and thus perform the actual revolution.
But then how do you expect to grow and win?
Hell I was a Holla Forumstard 3 years ago, I changed & this board helped in the late stages of throwing the dumb religion of "nationalism" (probably the biggest identity politics doctrine out there) to the trash, burned it, despise it & found my own real individuality.
I have to admit The Ego & It's Own helped me getting de-"red pilled" & finally cured me from that retarded Holla Forums disease.
I don't. Better for us to never win than for us to fail over and over again
spooked as fuck
What I think the Alt-Right does well is that they have answers to everyday questions that common people or at least their target demographics are concerned with.
You mention the immigration question and I agree the biggest problem is the system. But imagine a worker says "I've already lost my last job to China and I'm afraid I'm going to lose this one to an Indian immigrant" well maybe they'll take the real red pill on the system, but it doesn't address their present concern.
If they think the collapse of capitalism or the need to overthrow it is a long time down the road then they might think dealing with immigration is the prime issue at the moment.
If your only answer to people's concerns is "we've got to overthrow the system" then people will see that your bankrupt when it comes to offering practical solutions. You get people to buy deeper in by a matter of degrees, by being flexible yet ideologically solid. That's what the Alt-Right did besides getting capitalist shill funding.
You have to know what your core demographic really want and you have to make your ideology relevant in a sense.
I think Colmain, though eclectic, did a good job of this with his articles on migration (dissidentvoice.org/2016/01/coercive-engineered-migration-zionisms-war-on-europe/ ). Bricmont certainly stepped outside the bounds of the politically correct left (but not the traditional left) by saying that its rational for citizens to want to control their immigration policy especially when austerity is being forced on them.
The problem is even the radical left is used to talking about social problems from the point of view of left-liberals. What's necessary is to put forth a view which is genuinely different, not for instance say the liberal view on abortion with "…but we must get rid of capitalism" tacked on at the end if that issue comes up.
That post was on leftypol, maybe it was just someone who doesn't like communism and not the ebil monster pol. I try to go on both boards, and absolutely no one there gives a shit about leftypol. It's literally just you. Also, there are pollacks who like socialism…
they don't do anything right
Nobody said they cared about us, just that they are growing and that slips into IRL politics and we should care about them.
I hardly ever go there and there's always one thread about us.
You might be right but they shitpost enough to get their message across. I can't really judge how effective they really are, since their ideas, like OP said, are pretty pedestrian and common in bourgeois society.
I'm just saying that because they don't care about you they can get a lot more done for what they believe in. Instead of infighting.
Pic related, the first one is Holla Forums searches on Holla Forums, and the second is Holla Forums searches on Holla Forums. Leftypol obviously has a greater recognition for pol.
Case in point: >>>Holla Forums8307225 A fucking "Battle Thread" thread lmfao
Also >>>Holla Forums8298958 and other three threads as you pointed out.
Holla Forums doesn't want to talk about us because we're always right about everything.
They don't even read the Communist Manifesto.
I can't speak for 4chan, but the first thread you linked is a response to threads like this one, and the second one is some retard who thought lefties wanted Hillary. Don't forget to mention that the thread is anchored because no one cares about that shit.
Hard to believe when it's got 103 posts lol
103 posts isn't anything on pol, they have 3000 active users, remember?
Critical, independent thought is the single greatest factor, I'd think. Some people simply lack the willingness to be thorough or so much as slightly broaden their horizons, even if they happen to be superficially "smart" (see: sargon of akkad.) We have put together numerous reading lists for the interested and motivated, done a decent job of including brief "for dummies" style introductions for those willing but short on either time or dedication, and even made several very basic, extreme high-portability/readability infographics to share both big ideas and specific positions (pics related.) Nonetheless, we could stand to improve by casting these nets further and wider even if we expect most people to pass right through.
It's hardly a secret of any kind that we need a more robust multimedia wing, in the vein of Xexizy, Comrade Tru-Dank, et al. This is a component of the same outreach issue. It allows us to roll some substantial material in the sugar coat of entertainment. Our own Milo Yiannopoulos would be an extraordinary asset.
A collaborative theoretical project to distill major fundamental concepts into at most 15 pages or so could prove useful as well. Think Jacobin's ABC's of Socialism: The Abridged Version. I've noticed jargon is a big issue and creates something of a stumbling block for some people (Bacon's vulgar notions - it's easy to equivocate/misunderstand words like "socialism," "materialism," etc.) The task here would be to explain everything conceptually, in modern, everyday language, perhaps with a 1-2 page glossary appended to the end which naturally hangs these words on the now-familiar concepts.
as soon as you start stirring up shit here you get nuked
I didn't know this board was made by JIM.
The guy couldn't even hold himself in a debate gainst Holla Forumsacks.
Things that never happened for 100 please, Alex.
I was talking about media itself, not the people I said we need a fighter like Milo as well. We need both aggressive debate and entertaining, laid-back commentary. Chapo Trap House's coverage by the New York Times was a step in the right direction.
Looks like some Holla Forumsack just got triggered.
Surely you've got your own stuff. I suspected more along the lines of "you're a spook" or something.
That was easy lol
Older people will never listen to communism Its the millennials that need targeting Sanders proved that young people can be interested in politics that address economic inequality. I think that Holla Forums unfortunately gets too touchy about idpol - I agree that it is a serious fucking distraction used by the elite (i.e paid shills like John Oliver just to use an easy example) but we need to actually explain why social inequality exists, rather than just ignore people who are trying to learn. While I have sympathy for rural people who voted Trump or for Brexit because neoliberalism has ruined their lives - I have zero fucking patience for young city dwellers that voted for Trump - that picture of the young men in suits with the maga hats come to mind - Holla Forums faggots are mostly autist man children who are sexually frustrated and literally need a father figure to make them feel less insecure. So basically, ignore Holla Forums and prove to liberals that there is more to leftism than bitching about straight white men (etc).
I used to be an ayncrap until I read kropotkin. It's entirely possible for retards to realize they're retarded, and you can do it too fam. I believe you can become a comrade.
Yeah we need to brainwash kids because our arguments and the massive pile of empirical and mathematical evidence is too great for any reasonable person.
So you were never actually a Holla Forumsack in the first place. You were retarded, and have proceeded to try a different flavor of retarded. The varying flavors of Libetrarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism have always been both supremely retarded, and incompatible with a nationalist worldview. As I said, things that never happened.
We are on an anonymous website. People who come here don't always know what you are talking about. Some impressionable young liberal who only knows about leftism through the liberal shit they hear at university will just be turned off if your response to "what about the wage gap" is "fuck off with idpol".
Different person, retard. Don't you have to go back to /r/the_donald or your facebook aut-right pages soon though?
the majority of ancaps and fascists are just drones who don't understand theory. They think its compatible because they don't understand it.
I swear there's a good deal of ancaps who just don't understand how property works but have the hearts of anti-authoritarians.
LOOK AT THAT NEWFAG LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH
KEK such a newfag, bet you are an immigrant from r/donald.
Conspiracy theories about sjws and raving about "muh heritage" is an appropriate, everyday answer to every questions?
Establishment and pseudo-opposition ideologues use very simple ideas, and their audience eats it up. This much is observable fact to some degree. There's still the question, though, of which causes the other - does the demand for simpleminded, incomplete, flawed accounts of society drive the political and media apparatus to supply them? or does the material interest of these organs lead them to condition the masses?
The fact remains that it is very difficult to simplify our theory down to this level of mass consumption. We run into sharply negative returns before getting anywhere close - which has been a serious tactical problem throughout history. Perhaps we can work on that together? Simplifying ideas without cutting them off at the knees
Suddenly Ron Paul and the obsession of /n/ and /new/ with him never happened.
If you opt for indoctrination all you are doing is admitting your arguments have no merit
Is that the doom he was warning us of all along?
They were, just like how the internet used to be a network comprised mostly of college-goers. The chans were once lolbergs, but you can't stay young forever. Eventually you have to stop being a drooling retard. You'll get there one day Holla Forums, I'm confident.
I know you fellas aren't this dumb, it's doing you no favors to pretend. You're aware of what was said, and you can either respond to it or continue your losing streak.
Holla Forums frequently critiques Holla Forums for not having read enough Leftist political theory and philosophy to attack it effectively, but honestly people on this board and elsewhere are just as ignorant of Right-Wing authors as /pol is of Left-Wing authors.
You can do it, I believe in you! I'll hold your hand and look up dictionary definitions for you if you need it. You can do it!
I don't get it, you're admitting you were wrong and then try to stay on the high ground? lmfao
Holla Forums frequently critiques Holla Forums for not having read enough Leftist political theory and philosophy to attack it effectively, but honestly people on this board and elsewhere are just as ignorant of Right-Wing authors as /pol is of Right-Wing authors.
Oh fuck wait I meant to link to chapter 12 not 11, sorry. Scroll down a little.
Good. I've read shit like The Fountainhead and it actively degrades your brain the more you read it.
If I could unread anthem I would.
That's the same argument they use though, that Marx rots your brain and stuff. Still, I too can't stand reading right-wing "intellectuals".
I agree with this too. Holla Forums doesn't read, but some of the rejections of Right-Wing ideas I've seen on Holla Forums are pretty weak.
Nobody likes Rand.
Bullshit. You guys are ignorant of extraordinarily basic concepts. Three-quarters of the time you think you're arguing against us, you're yelling at your own delusions.
If we were talking about postmodern burgerstan bullshit, I'd say the same of "left" "philosophy" too
How I wish that were true.
I'm not from Holla Forums. Please don't associate me with them.
ｓ ｈ ａ ｄ ｉ ｌ ａ ｙ
Political theory is only useful if it works in concert with human psychology. Leftism and communism are unsustainable in long term because they require that man bends against his will to theory.
Will you educate them on the famines?
Holla Forums ur so funny when u try to be smart
not an argument
They are the establishment now. They're no longer a part of the counter culture. You simply need to follow their patterns and learn to mock them. This quote from an article I read earlier goes in the right direction.
They're all the same. They all respond to the same types of attacks. Since they've become emboldened they are also at risk of becoming complacent, much like 8 years of Obama did to the left. I recommend heaping derision and mockery at them whenever you can. It exposes how sensitive their feelings truly are. It's much like an amplification attack works when it comes to ddosing. A little bit of prodding prompts a big response. Find their triggers.
Before the election it was CTR, which became the modern equivalent of JIDF. All you had to do to derail a thread was start praising Clinton and you'd get a flood of CTR SHILL HOW MANY SHEKELS U GET PAID? If one shit post provokes 10 angry responses that's 10 posts closer to autosage.
Not all of these fucks come from 4/8 either. Attack them on Twitter. Don't attack them on Facebook though. Go lightly when you use your real name.
didn't feel the need to make one m80, ur post was so shit
nod an argumend :DDDDDD D
If you look really, really closely, you'll find that you didn't either.
I did not see an argument for this assertion anywhere
IT'S HUMAN NATURE
One of the things the Neo-Fascists have done very well is completely overtaken major social media outlets.
Twitter, Reddit, Youtube, halfchan are basically completely dominated by the neo-fascists in terms of presence. I know people, who aren't that into politics, but because youtube keeps recommending them fucktards like Sargon or Paul Joseph Watson, over time they became reactionaries or neo-fascists themselves.
On Reddit, Briebart and neo-fascist shit are on top of /r/all all the fucking time, where only once in a life time you will get something socialist out there, they also dominate places like /r/worldnews by constantly upvoting literally anything negative about Venezuela, Cuba, Greece and filling those threads with far-right bullshit and Heritage/Prager nonsense.
Halfchan, enough said, the site has basically become ground zero for Neo-Fascism and introducing it to the youth.
The left need to be much more aggressive in terms of astroturfing. We need to have a much bigger presence on social media websites, instead of fucktards like Sargon or whatever getting recommended to everyone, it should be people like LSR. Reddit should have far-left threads upvoted to the top of /r/all.
The internet is a very serious battleground and the far-right are dominating areas outside of the bubbles sites like Facebook create.
Hello there, you fat, frail, and deluded pieces of human shit, unworthy of life.
When was the last time you lifted anything heavier than your bag of doritos?
Which is why your ideology doesn't have a single success story.
He's ugly and has an annoying voice, whenever a normie is confronted by this, they click on another video.
Do you believe human nature is cultural? or do you disagree with my assertion that equality is counter to human's natural desire?
You'd think Google would have cracked down on that shit considering their liberal sensibilities.
Now prove that history and society are actually this mechanical without ad-hoc reasoning.
Pro-tip: you can't.
Humans have been acting against nature their whole lives. There's a reason appealing to nature is called a fallacy.
Oh, why even bother arguing if you're this sure of yourself then!
I think you don't know what communism is, what our ideas even are. The things you are saying prove that.
This sentence means absolutely nothing in the context of this debate. Communism isn't about "maximal equality". Human's "natural desire" is a complex relationship between biology and culture. Your question is confused.
You are exactly characterizing the kind of poster being mocked in the OP pic.
in what a way have they been acting against their nature?
Because I'm not under the impression that you are capable of which no marxist has so far been capable.
Yes? We don't believe in social darwinism if thats what you're getting at.
I don't see how it's in any way relevant whether this is true or false. "Equality" simply does not exist in the sense of people having the same abilities, nor does anyone suggest people should be expected to have the same abilities.
why do you need to seize the means of production?
People are going to love Trump, you realize his policies directly take all the workers that any actual socialist movement would want to have right? The Democrats are dead, leftism is dead. Such 20th century notions are outdated in a world where the dividing forces are not socialism and capitalism but globalism and localism. Holla Forums is winning and will continue to win because not one country wants the UN to become an actual governing body, but the wealthy on Wall Street do.
So that they can be held under democratic workers' control.
So we aren't exploited by people who are literally robbing us of our time and effort?
I know what historical materialism is, what I'm asking for is evidence that it works the way marxists say it does that isn't an ad hoc explanation that begs the question.
As the theory goes the people who are actual productive laborers should own the means of producing goods rather than people who had silly currency which has value because people believe it has value. This is agreeable. The part where it flops on its face is that modern socialists believe that productive people should be taxed to provide for leeches, which is the opposite of what Marx wanted. Marx believed that the underclass must be killed as much as the ruling class, that only workers deserved to live.
I doubt you're a factory worker, and an office isn't really productive
Then I am still correct, there are no leftists in America
Again with this shitty meme lmfao Democrats are centrist as fuck you mongoloid
So if the Democrats aren't leftist why do you hate Trump? Both Trump and Hillary must naturally be rightist, and the people protesting aren't doing so because they care about economics but because Trump is "a fascist racist hitler transphobe". The actual workers in the Rust Belt threw in their lot with Trump.
if you dont believe in social Darwinism does that mean you believe all men are equal and there are no genotype differences or that they aren't sigificant?
and how shall the profits be distributed?
I'm pretty sure you don't know what either of these actually mean. But go ahead, you little intellectual you, use the big words the big boys over on Holla Forums use to look smart.
Which I said doesn't matter, leftism is dead. You're arguing about ideologies which were relevant in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Let me see if I understand our discussion so far Human nature would stop socialism from working Human nature is determined by society that we live in No it's not, prove it Its called base and superstructure Give me historical examples of such a thing Go nuts, have all the links you want lol no, give me evidence that proves your argument So, Why don't you go read a fucking book? You clearly have no interest in actual discussion, no matter what evidence we provide you just say "na uh"
kid, you seriously don't know a fuckin thing about marx or marxism
If you're arguing points and you actually understand what you are talking about you won't need to request that your opponent read 30000 pages of bullshit. People care more about name dropping and promoting an image of themselves as a socialist revolutionary than the actual concepts. If you're too fucking stupid to explain your beliefs in a simple manner than you're not worth debating.
You guys are the ones who consistently misunderstand evolution lmao What sort of cumulative change in the heritable factors of populations as a result of environmental stressors proves your assumption that character traits are fixed, immutable and independent of all context?
Welfare statists are the ones who believe in a welfare state, not socialists. The right only calls them socialists. Socialized labor is more abstract. If you're an assembly line worker you don't "create" anything whatsoever either, your worth is defined in reference to the whole.
Yeah okay. I don't care either because Marxism is outdated.
Wow, another argument that has been debunked since before you were born. You either own your workplace or you don't - the owner takes the profits and gives you a set amount of income - they then keep the remainder for themself. The capitalist is therefore stealing from the worker. This applies to every workplace with even a single employee, regardless of the nature of the work.
I think this was clear when his first post was "protip: you can't prove me wrong" lol
Wow as if people are actually this simple.
What about, because they're both shit?
Social darwinism is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary science. I'm not sure why you think genotype or gender has anything to do with it.
Equally amongst the workers initially. Long term, there are no profits - we aren't fucking capitalists.
Yeah dude, I make a six figure salary but because I have a boss I'm totally working class man. I'm defo down with the struggle of the common man.
They call themselves socialists and adhere to socialist policies. You say they aren't but you aren't relevant to anything, so your opinion is worthless on the matter.
So you're saying there is no production and therefore you have no real right to seize the means of production.
Which once again feeds into the argument that communism and capitalism are outdated, that the mixed market is the future and that the conflict of the 21st century is between nationalists and globalists in which the people of the country (the nationalists) seize what belongs to them from those people who would attempt to undermine or steal it from them, and hence steal their freedom to determine the course of their own fate from them.
Well done! You actually understood something for a change. This is EXACTLY what we are saying.
About shit that doesn't matter, yes
You're not a factory worker though, so you aren't even getting hurt by any of this.
Yet your boss is still getting a part of that money that should be yours. Congrats, you're working class.
What profits? This isn't capitalism. Surplus value can be distributed in whatever way the people democratically decide, for they own the surplus value collectively.
Let me go at this piece by piece then.
In the 1st section, he asserts that his ideological opposite believes man does not work without the incentive of wages. This is a disingenuous assertion. He goes on to list the Russian serfs who began to till their field, and the emancipated Negro who set about to work after his freedom was assured. The latter of course doesn't help his argument since he was indeed paid a wage for his efforts. And the former is disingenuous for the reason that a wage is paid to the worker, that wage being in food. The Russian serfs did not till fields out of the goodness of their hearts, but out of necessity: To do otherwise would mean death, and of course work is preferable to death, nobody he presents as his other has argued otherwise. He speaks of small mountain communes where men voluntarily chop the wood for their fireplaces, and small Russian villages where men revel in their ability to do farmwork: But this is again, not a labor of love, but a labor of necessity. To freeze in the winter is less pleasant than any labor. What has been argued by his opponents is not that labor will not be performed without wages, but labor is not performed without incentive. And that when man performs a labor others do not, he seeks to keep the rewards of the labor to those who work as he does and those he deigns to share it with. The city dwellers will receive no bread when they choose not to aid the farmer.
In the 2nd, he again goes after a point that is not made by even the most staunch capitalists. He speaks of the loss of potential labor by those whose incentive is not enough to act at their maximum: But these people ARE able to work at their maximum. He speaks of how the employee is exploited by the employer, but why does he not then become an employer himself if it is a life so luxurious? Because, as he leaves out, there are costs to being the employer that occur before labor begins. Wealth does not spring up in vacuums (well, aside from in usury), it must come from labor. And the employer is born from the saved products of labor. He speaks of admittedly terrible things such as the young girls gone bald from carrying trays, and the tragedies incurred with child labor. But he has not yet proposed an alternative. He has said that mere machines could transport the trays themselves, but what incentive is there to obtain said machines, and if it were such a fantastic idea why has no more noble soul employed the tactic? I hope in a further portion he answers with his alternative to this, as the Industrial revolution employed these tactics tenfold and I'd hardly say it was a negative thing on the timeline of human history.
I'll combine the 3rd and 4th parts. He states that volunteer organizations are good examples of situations in which communal living could be possible, and how idlers could be dealt with. He again, underestimates the problem. A volunteer organization acts in the selfless interest and is manned by selfless individuals, to be kicked out is to merely go back into society as the man you were before you entered it. To be exiled from a commune is potentially life-threatening. As society splits into further communes, to be alone is to be doomed. The exiled one is far more likely to resort to violence to take back the materials of the commune and to work their fields for himself, as his situation is far more dire than the volunteer worker who is no longer allowed in the Red Cross. This fits in with many of Marx's teachings, that those who don't work will eventually die off and workers will remain, but then how can one claim to hold the high-ground on the tragedies of the worker when he punishes his fellow man just as much if not more, when he acts out of his interest? He continues on to state that idleness has to be a minority trait or factories would all close, but he is arguing with parts of the system at a time. He says that workers must not be lazy, but forgets that they have incentive above subsistence. But before he states that incentive above subsistence is not needed! His premise, to its credit, is solid. But it's only solid in a subsistence framework, where people are doing the bare minimum work to survive, and only do the jobs needed to survive. In his system leisure products are a rarity because they require labor above subsistence, and even then would only be delegated to the workers who produce them. If the farmer wants a toy, how does he obtain it? He must trade what he has for what another has, and that is the beginnings of the capitalist system as the fullest extent of voluntary human interaction. And as for the most laughable point, he states that "idleness must be taken out at the source". The source of idleness my friend is leisure being more pleasurable than work, and that is a problem that can scarcely be solved without creating conditions in which the system is rejected.
There's that liberal condescension, and you said you had nothing in common with the democrats.
We hate this fuck That's also an example of an advanced concept we call "bants." He doesn't really expect you to read 4000 pages. Grow a sense of humor. I have never been asked to explain any beliefs. I clarify what marxist thought is on a very simple level at every single opportunity regardless. Holla Forums simply prefers not to listen, and consistently aligns us with the SJW crowd despite endless protest
=If you come here to argue against our positions, as Holla Forums generally does, you should have some idea at all what they are.=
I don't know, I'm guessing it means something like "using an explanatory device to explain something doesn't verify the validity of said explanatory device".
give me evidence for historical materialism here is this and that book explaining historical materialism that isn't evidence that historical materialism actually functions as it's adherents claim the bible is true, look it says it right here in the bible
Appealing to authority? Pathetic.
it's not "disingenuous" you fucking retard. people make that fucking argument here literally every fucking day.
yeah man, workers of the world unite and stuff. I bought a new car the other day and couldn't afford a lobster dinner that night, dude, being working class is so hard, goddamn.
What authority did I appeal to? You are factually not relevant to anything. Holla Forums is the equivalent of a bunch of highschoolers starting a "marx club" where they discuss communism. Holla Forums would be the same but for hitler, but it turns out nationalism is a vitally important ideology for the 21st century so they actually end up mattering.
Marxism goes beyond just theft. Ruling ideology destroys society - the reason people are greedy in capitalism is because it is taught to the masses - see base and super structure. Its ironic actually - so many things that Holla Forums despises is because of this. Take for example how we seem to have a generation of manchildren that would rather play video games than play sport or watch Marvel movies than any kind of culturally intelligent work - its because its more profitable so corporations spend shit loads of money advertising it and selling merchandise in order to make it appealing. We want people to make their own decisions and not be constantly bombarded with propaganda from people who are trying to make a buck off people who are taught that its more important to spend money and have social status than have security in their lives.
It's almost like you're BOTH being dishonest fuckstains.
You do have to work in the factories to be working class, this is the entire fucking origin of marxism- it was born from the suffering of the industrial revolution and the present fact that the workers were doing all the actual productive labor and the bosses were getting rich off of that labor.
And your post is why marxism is dead in the water, you're not a worker and you hate the workers who voted Trump for being white rednecks but you still want to be a communism. Modern marxism is a bastardization, a joke that has been raped so many times by soft cunts who wish their desk job entitled them to rise up that it has no meaning.
All I ever get here is "read this obscure as shit 20 pound tome by author I only mentioned for brownie points".
If you actually understand them you should have no problem explaining them.
What do you even consider evidence? Is all academic work just da joos for you? We have no means of providing evidence if you are just going to say "a marxist wrote it, therefore its not evidence"
Or people play games because they're enjoyable and are lazy because work is tedious and difficult, especially when your job is delivering pizzas.
The election for president was nationalism versus globalism. Going "ahahaha" on the internet just makes you delusional when faced with the actual facts.
I have come here and asked what you people believe dozens upon dozens of times. Not once have I ever received an answer even remotely like the previous.
Plebs liking pleb stuff is neither caused nor created by the fact that there are markets.
Hilarious how the aspie taking everything literally is saying marxism isn't suited to the 21st century because "working class" isn't literally some homeless construction worker or whatever.
Predictive power and falsfiability.
I'm not the one who ate everything Trump said up, brah
His actual point is even funnier than that. He's saying the reason we have a generation of manchildren is that they want to play with their toys more than they want to work. Yet somehow, they believe taking away incentives will magically make the leisure that exists evaporate, and will make the NEET put his toys away for no reason.
You cannot have marxism if there is no actual working class. There is no need for it if people aren't suffering. It ceases to be applicable. Otherwise you might as well claim that you could have medieval marxism with peasant farmers rising up against the nobility and owning the fruits of the farm.
You are a meme at this point famalam.
You're a fucking retard fam
LMFAO That doesn't follow at all I specifically gave you an assembly line as an example. Goods get produced, even though no individual fucking worker produces any goods completely himself. This is an extremely basic concept.
so do you believe all men are equal then or not?
give me evidence faries don't exist
Yeah, member when there were no markets and all the peasants were highbrow as fuark?
is this how Holla Forums "wins" by resorting to mental gymnastics and strength in number of shitposts so to a casual bystander it seems like they are "right"
Holla Forums is a bunch of sheltered middle class white boys who never worked a day in their life and have no idea about the actual life of real working class people. Their primary concern is roleplaying as oppressed workers fighting a socialist revolution for approval amongst their peers and likes on facebook. Your bullshit excuse is a means to toss yourself in with working class people despite having nothing in common and being extremely ignorant of what they go through. There is nothing worse than limousine liberals.
The irony in you posting a picture of Einstein.
member when we were discussing historical materialism?
Trump is going to pass a 1 trillion dollar infrastructure bill. The working class- the real working class- will love him for it. The deportation of illegals will enable wages to rise as the surplus army of labor is reduced. Hence Trump will end up as a very popular president.
Why would anyone bother?
You're all delusional and desperate to be part of a revolution, yet at the same time none of you are actually willing to take up arms. This is worse than all the neonazis on Holla Forums who LARP as might jewslayers.
Yeah okay. I understand now how the workers in the rust belt are so easily demonized by "socialists" living in New York city who are oppressed by high rent and their parents not giving them enough allowance to keep up their retarded millennial lifestyle. You sure showed me.
I'd fucking love to see einstein explain GR without defining tensors or minkowski space
Equal in what way? Its such a liberal concept, its vague and doesn't get to the point of anything. We want whats ours, and we have strength in numbers, so we work together to take back what is ours. What does equality have to do with anything here?
Oh, you lost it.
That quote has nothing to do with the post at all.
Nice nothing post
You're welcome fam ;)
top kek Keep strawmanning based off literally 0 knowledge of our lives off the internet.
if you believe that culture is the determinant of human nature then man must be equal, no?
All cultures all equal? Are you retarded?
Einstein was posted as an appeal to authority - clearly this intelligent person has some insight into explanations of concepts And yet this authority figure was a marxist.
Thats quite a leap in logic.
No it was posted because it was a good quote.
Whatever, I'll drop it.
I'm technically an entrepreneur tbh Research chems won't synth and/or peddle themselves you know Feels good not to have part of my surplus value extracted by someone who is completely superfluous to the entire process but others don't have the opportunity. There are hardware and reagent costs etc.
This is the mindset of an idiot and yet I see it posted here all the time. It's a pitiful leftist tactic designed to try and frustrate the opponent and dilute the argument.
pic related, its you right now
If you don't believe that culture affects human nature then why do you participate in any political struggles for hearts and minds in the first place
I think you need a dictionary friendo
Oh come the fuck on. You're dropping it because you said something stupid, got outsmarted, and have no comeback. That's painfully obvious.
There is nothing that leads into it. Elaborate why the latter leads from the former.
maybe if you lurked here for more than five minutes you wouldn't be so fucking stupid
No, I'm dropping it because I made a little jab that had little to do with discussion. This isn't a thread about Einstein. But feel free to complain that I'm stealing another argument from you.
I read what I was told to read fag.
It's absolute shit. cf.
What the fuck?
If I use the scientific method to invent a cure for the AIDS, that doesn't mean that my method is valid?
This really misses the mark, considering that you're replying to my first post in the thread.
Well this is an anonymous image board, I can't spot every Holla Forums shit poster individually.
if culture determines human nature, then a jap in mexico would be identical to a mexican and vice versa. Does this not mean they are equal if not initially, after the cultural programming?
Are you really so stupid you think the human brain is that simple or
lol what and you think because you read one chapter yer fuckin done?
i bet yer the sort of kid that only did required reading in school and thought all books r dum
I'm not the one claiming culture determines nature
How do you expect to explain your ideas to the masses and convince them of your way, if you apparently need an endless amount of reading to even be able to talk about it?
But they are? Are you saying you believe that something your ancestors did culturally is hard wired into your brain? I'm not trying to be condescending, I legitimately have no idea what you mean here.
Define "human nature" I don't see how "all residents of mexico are identical" is supposed to follow from "cultural factors have some sort of effect on behavior"
I actually agree with you to an extent. People here need to be better at explaining entry level shit. With that being said, the more you want to understand a topic, the more you need to read about it. No different to understanding any other political theory.
This sentence is unintelligible.
how do you expect me to care when you're pointed to the tools to help yourself and when you find something you don't like you tear up in a fit of rage and call it "disingenuous" you fucking cockstain
You think this is the first time I've been here? Every single time I've attempted to converse with someone here, to actually discuss what they believe, I've been told to read a different book.
Each time, I've read the chapters, sections, and often the entire work that I've been informed is "necessary before you can try and talk about this". And yet every time I come back and I'm just told to go read another thing. You don't have a position you understand, you're just parroting books at this point and hoping nobody comes back.
When does it end? When will this board actually want to talk about it? Is there a specific amount? How do you guys know which books each other have read, do you keep tabs?
Did you stop reading there you fuckwit? I explained why the cunt was arguing with a point nobody is making, and one that, from what he later writes, he's well aware nobody is making. How do you expect me to continue to read your sacred shit if the guy completely bullshits in the first few sentences?
Fascism is completely incapable of irony
That's where we'll come in
If you've read so much, why are we yet to see any discussion regarding points from these books. What is it you want to discuss? The only questions I've seen in this thread are entry level shit that you would know the answer to if you had actually read anything. I'm serious - right now - list in plain English your questions and we will answer them.
I can't say much about ancaps as it never appealed to me, but in regards to Fascists I agree. Even on Holla Forums from what I've seen haven't read anything by Giovanni Gentile (who is known as the Philosopher of Fascism and wrote all of the Important Fascist theory). Every movement needs it's useful idiots I guess
You know that's simply not true.
So I challenge you.
Are you willing for discussion about the far right? I'm genuinely interested in your worldview, and finding out where we might disagree with eachother, that both parties may win and gain knowledge. Maybe even find a viable solution to a problem, that one or the other had not considered before.
I won't say that I'm either this or the other. I just want to learn and become wiser and gain knowledge. That is, I have not planted myself so much on any given ideology that I can't be convinced why it is wrong if shown sufficient argumentation and proof. I have some ideas that you might disagree with, and I don't necessarily stand for everything that I present. Many of the things I present may just be speculations, and some things I have deeper insights to, and have reflected upon a lot. Now, some of my ideas might be wrong, so please help me to understand if I'm missing something in my understanding if you care to explain. I assume that we can agree upon the point that we both want to know the truth about a given subject. So you must argue for your views, or I wont consider them.
Now what I want to discuss is, (and please dont respond unless you are willing to go into a deeper discussion if necessary about this topic) Not Socialism : I know to an extent what the weltanschaung of Not Socialism is, and that is what I'm exploring right now and want to know more about. I want to know its mechanisms in more detail. It has invoked my interest, and that is why I come to this board. - I want to challenge that worldview, and find out more about it. I want to know in more detail what the arguments against it is. So where else to come, that to a board like this?
Now please don't use thecnical insider jargon to explain things, it must be easily understandable for someone that havn't read all the books.
My first question to get it started is (and then we can dwell into further discussion): What is wrong about Not Socialism and Traditionalism?
(if this is not the right thread to post this, please let me know. I think it is on the topic though, and I'm not sure if my post deserves its own thread)
This implies that in your perfect culture/upbringing you could eliminate qualities such as greed. This is what I am arguing against. The notion goes against the logic of evolution, it would be like saying a you can train a dog behave identically to a cat. Sure maybe you could do it with enough energy expenditure but as soon as he gets hungry enough he will break the conditioning.
I think that's a mistake. Present it as alternate theories. They think they're right, you think you're right, nobody likes being told their ideas are 'wrong'.
By setting out with a purely dichotomous 'right/wrong' position you'll risk alienating the undecided and the partially committed.
One of the alt-right's strongest calling cards is its embracing of individual difference as long as they're all working towards the same end-goal. At the same time they see leftists laying down rules of rightspeak and thoughtcrime and tearing each other to shreds for piety points over the slightest deviation from a socially-approved set of rules.
Introduce things as a spectrum. Instead of:
"Socialism is the only fair way for humanity to share its wealth" try "Are there elements of socialism that you'd agree might be good for the majority of people?"
t. Holla Forumstard by the way, I do drop in here occasionally because I enjoy promoting the healthy exchange of ideas over blinkered orthodoxy.
There was a huge fucking wall of text you faggots ignored in response to the book I was told I had to read before I was allowed to have an opinion.
So wait, I still have to ask you guys the questions? You're now saying that even after reading all your shit, I still don't know anything and have to ask you, the paragon of knowingness, what to think?
Why do they have to? What do they gain from doing so that they do not already possess? If Giovanni Gentile's works are so crucial to understanding Fascism, where did Giovanni Gentile get his understanding of Fascism from?
So can we maybe work on some of what I suggested before Holla Forums started raiding? i.e. >>1069590 It would help everyone it seems
I think he's talking about utilitarian truth. Like what you said with predictive power. Historical materialism has this in droves, but you need to, like, understand the theory before you can correctly use it to make predictions and rationalize observations I'd rec you Engels' Socialism: Utopian and Scientific if you weren't averse to reading. That's a good basic one
Humans aren't dogs.
(Not socialism) *National socialism
humans aren't robots either.
You underestimate people. Unless we're talking about literal sociopaths, then you can get rid of a person's greed.
I weep for philosophy
Evolution refers to adapting to your environment through selective breeding where certain traits continue to exist while others do not. In the past 50,000 years, humans have not evolved as we have continued to shape our environment rather than let our environment shape us - that is why we are capable of this level of discussion and a dog is not. We propose shaping our environment in a way that allows us to be our own masters, rather than the slaves of a handful of individuals who are ironically slaves to their own greed due to the vicious cycle of capitalism.
Then what the fuck are you posting for? What do you want from us?
Okay, you want someone to actually argue a position on human nature?
I'll bite. So human beings are biological, material creatures, and as such our behaviors are rooted in our material world, in our material needs (to eat, drink, sleep, fuck, etc). Obviously only an idiot would deny that. That kind of idiot would be not a materialist.
However, we should explore further what it means to have your behaviour conditioned by your material environment. Material environments change. Creatures who cannot adapt their behaviour to new material environments, as they develop, cease to be able to survive and die. This is Darwinism.
A social system - a society - is a material environment. So when we say that behaviour is conditioned by a material environment, that means not just our own biology, but the world around us. That includes the society we live in.
There seems to be an idea when the question of human nature comes up, that our human nature determines the limitations of how we can organize ourselves, politically and socially. There is some truth to that, but it is not so concrete.
There seems to be an idea that the relationship between “what humans are like” on the one hand, and “how we organize ourselves” on the other, is a one way relationship - that what we are like determines how we might organize ourselves. And that’s partly true, as I said; we cannot organize ourselves in a way that necessitates us breathing without apparatus under water, because we cannot breathe that way (yet?).
But in fact, the relationship is not one-way, like that. It is two-way. Each one influences the other. The word often used to describe this kind of two-way causal relationship is “Dialectical”. As Marxists, we understand that things aren’t static, and that there are feedback loops in nature, in society. So sure, the traits we have made the society we have, but it goes the other way. The society we have makes the traits we have. We shape our environment; our "nature" creates our societies, and we are shaped by our environment, our societies create our "nature".
Human beings can exist, and have existed, in thousands of different environments and societies, and have displayed very different behaviour in each.
This is adaptability at its finest. This adaptability is what has made us such successful global conquerors, as a species. It’s how we’ve been able to survive in almost every continent on the world, in so many different environments. It’s how we’ve got the amazing technology and society we live in today.
Now, as I said, we can clearly see that this relationship between our material, economic relationships on the one hand, and our ideology and culture, our ideas and behaviour, on the other hand, is two-way. Dialectical.
But, in the final analysis, we have to see that it’s our material world that makes the decisive decision. It’s our economic relations - the way we produce resources, distribute resources, organize ourselves in that respect - that set the boundaries for our ideology and culture.
This relationship is described by Marxists as a “base” and “superstructure” relationship.
The “base” is the economic relations, the mode of production and the method of organization for producing and distributing those resources.
The “superstructure” is our ideas, our culture - large aspects of our behaviour and character traits, our understanding of ourselves, of each other, and of society as a whole.
They interact dialectically, there’s feedback, but as Materialists we understand the base as having the dominant weighting.
So, with this understanding of things - that we are grounded in the material, physical world, and that our “human nature” is in a communicative, two-way, “dialectical” relationship with our environment, we can start to see other future societies as possible, because how humans behave will in turn develop alongside that society.
Thanks comrade, but I fear you'll get a lot of meme replies so I hope now you've taken the bait, you're willing to see it through.
Many different influences especially national syndicalism, Futurism, some of Mussolini's political views and the situation in Italy pre 1922 march on Rome. If you are going to claim to be part of an ideology, you really should read the theory.
Everyone except people like Trump and Clinton have been hurt by neoliberalism.
I work (below) minimum wage and 60% of people will be working for less than $15/r by 2020. People who lost their factory job are still working but the factory jobs actually paid (unions) and the new jobs pay pennies.
You do not understand this.
Fascism has no theory.
How? I don't want to point out the obvious but you know communism failed multiple times right? I know it wasn't """real communism""" but still.
can you not read?
thank you for the definition, humans may not have 'evolved' per say but the genotypes have changed and continue to.
This is good Would you consider contributing to ?
By hanging them. :^)
For one, they might learn actually learn what fascism is.
Cats and dogs are two different species.
That's just Giovanni Gentile
Are you just pretending to be retarded?
There are material reasons that communism has failed. Personally, I'm not convinced that it will happen in our life times. Sure, things look bad right now, but they have before. Communism didn't fail because of human nature, it failed because the time wasn't right in some cases, and it failed because (in my view) some people were stupid enough to believe communism in one country was feasible.
Just some of the many things most people in the """"first"""" world actually struggle to attain but were provided for EVERYONE in those "failed" states
Fascism isn't a set of texts. Fascism is based in base sentiments like "for the glory of the nation".
ironically that may actually work, but it would probably require reducing the population to 80 Autism Level and wouldn't be sustainable vs competing economy. Also you would still need a state.
Truly the communist deductive capabilities surpass my own.
This is why communism would only work as planned when most or all of the world turns to it. Otherwise you get semisuccesses like the Soviet Union.
kek lets see your kindergarten understanding of history
and if it doesn't work then, you will only starve a billion people eh? At least you wont have to get a job though.
Not sure if facetious, stupid or both protip: humans living in different material conditions would still be humans
Well, its a good thing at least you know that your analogy was complete shit. I would also like to let you know that humans are a different species from both.
No substantive critique here.
Fascism seeks to destroy nuance. They want everything to be decided by memes and one-liners.
That's wrong, that's just nationalism which is rather broad. Fascism is nationalist, but not all nationalists are Fascists. Fascism is a social and economic doctrine, if you don't have one you don't have the other.
Huh? Huh? Can you not read? Your argument relies on assuming that "human greed is not fully innate" necessarily implies arbitrary traits of arbitrary animals have no innate component. This seems absurd and you haven't tried to argue/justify the implication.
I was thinking bread lines.
I'm not going to write a well sourced essay for some faggot on some shitty chan board
What ever happened to fun?
Source for this claim? Sure, capitalism doesn't feed the whole world, but to say capitalists deliberately kill people for political gain is pretty extreme.
And if you check the great famines of the last 125 years you'll find that they most often occur (and have the highest body count) under socialist or communist regimes. How is that capitalism's fault?
You realize we hate fun, right? Especially "memes", those are the worst.
I don't think it does, I was saying that you could indoctrinate and program someone/thing to a degree but it will always revert to it's evolved instincts. And to be clear to think you can eliminate base characteristics from humans like desire to obtain resources is absurd.
Literally every famine since ~1945 has been fake. There is more than enough food to go around and has been for a long time.
If you are looking for explicitly political famine you need to look at the food aid/imf/c-adb agreements in africa when everyone has enough food to share but they want to get the best loan options, mineral rights, political appointments, etc.
Bangladesh 1974 famine good example as well where food aid was explicitly withheld until Bangladesh complied with the US' demands.
A child starves to death every ten seconds. That is happening RIGHT NOW. That is capitalism, why are you talking about something completely different?
happened to me, it could happen to you too bud
Not noticing the reason people are going towards identity politics is because you left faggot cucks attack whites non stop
brain damage is always possible
you fucking revleft maoist faggot i can smell your posts from a mile
sub 100 Autism Level shitskin
So this is the power of Holla Forums…
This. Most of the serious alt-right "leaders" understand that the chans provide useful idiots, mostly impressionable young people looking to be contrarian, as cannon fodder to amplify their voices. But it's a force they only have a tenous grasp on, and now that their ideology has become a mainstream cultural and political force with the upcoming Trump administration, that connection is about to become a lot weaker.
They're about to lose their edginess and painting them as the status quo will drive away the strict contrarians (I'd say a majority of the channers fall into that category). What's left after that are typical conservatives and the irrelevant fringes, like Spencer or the more serious white nationalist forums.
wew, comedic genius fam, how subversive
Hm, well let's look back
It literally doesn't The existence of an environmental component to Trait A does not mean "there exists no genetic component to Trait A."
You're thinking of characteristics in wildly essentialist terms. "Greed" takes some obviously and wildly different shapes depending on context, right? You don't sell grain futures or bomb your foes in ancient Mesopotamia. So whether or not this mystical "essential human nature" changes or not, the shape it takes and its social impact invariably change. That social impact is all anyone can ever really identify, observe, care, or worry about. We don't even have to bother defining what we """essentially""" """""are"""""" at the very """""core""""" of our """""being.""""" It's a thoroughly extraneous concept. The point is that your ability to for instance construct a state of affairs where people don't stick each other up at gunpoint because they're hungry does not depend on "hunger" no longer existing in any form or what exactly the phenomenon of hunger """is""" on the molecular level. It's absolutely absurd to claim that because the biological process of hunger always exists it will necessarily cause a certain observable outcome independent of context. Absolutely absurd.
Africa's problem is overpopulation, and it's not 'capitalism's' job to feed them. Africa in particular has proven time and time again that food aid is directly converted into more mouths to feed.
You mean the one caused by massive flooding, political upheaval and a disgusting rampage by the Bangladeshi military fueled by weapons provided by China and the Soviets?
Guess what? Capitalism may have won some concessions but Socialism did nothing.
False Cause fallacy. Please show how capitalism has caused this.
you could at least read the exchange you mean like seeking food?
Hmm…. Let's read this again: How about we choose the context to be "I have just eaten so much I couldn't get down another bite"? I don't think I'd be all that up for seeking food in this context, bro
start a new thread here with what you posted and you'll get some people to discuss with you
Holla Forums is pretty good at tolerating debates, unless you're an obvious Holla Forums shitposter
then I guess you are too dumb to realize you will be hungry again
Eventually you will get tired of looking at the world through such a hateful lens
admit it–it's exhausting to be a racist
That's another change of context you fucking moron
Yes, I'll fucking eat more when I'm hungry again. I won't eat more when I'm full enough to puke. Goddamn
seeking of food does not mean immediate consumption
So, you should abandon beliefs you hold to be true when they become too uncomfortable, and switch to a comfier set of delusions?
We produce enough food to feed 10 BILLION people. Our neoliberal global order has ensured such a misuse of resources and commodities that even in developed nations there is chronic malnourishment in millions of people.
what did my statement have to do with racism?
Yes, it's exactly that. Learn and grow and reflect upon those beliefs you "hold to be true". If you feel uncomfortable, you're experiencing cognitive dissonance and you need to resolve that.
The only good "introduction" to Capital is Harvey's
Well I naturally assumed that's what you meant because we were talking about observable outcomes, and "I should perhaps at some indeterminate future point physically acquire food" is not an action/observable outcome but an intent/objective/guiding principle/whatever, which itself takes shape differently based on context.
honestly I didn't really read your post
Ok, thanks. nice quads
Got it. I was worried about all this global warming stuff, but you've convinced me to just believe it's not happening.
Oops. Was meant for
How about for people unwilling to read Capital? This thread is nothing if not evidence that we have some niches to fill. Perhaps we could run a regular dedicated questions thread, source material from that, and turn it into a more layman-oriented resource which isn't necessarily meant to "introduce" anything for further study?
Good, I'm glad you extrapolated that from someone experiencing cognitive dissonance over their racist worldview.
Jesus fucking christ what's up with poltards and retarded metaphors? Have you ever considered the fact that humans are not cats or dogs you fucking troglodyte?
"If a worldview causes discomfort, there must be something wrong with the worldview."
Can't you see the faulty reasoning there?
I'm just using an example to illustrate your error.
I said *resolve* that worldview, and if you come across information that allows you to carry on, then so be it.
They've never picked up an anthropology book, they just rely on shitty infographics based on 1920s' science about skull sizes.
There is no one set of 'human instincts' that is independent of material conditions you mongtard. You can't just wave your hands and say "i dunno, instincts and human nature and stuff maaan".
Using incredibly simplistic analogies to explain complex topics just shows lack of knowledge on topic and intelligence. The fact that cats and dogs are different species of animals have nothing to do with the fact that there simply is no single, unchanging 'human nature'.
No its not.
This thread actually has some good material
But are they, really? There is no single, unchanging "cat nature" or "dog nature". Seems a bit simplistic assuming cats are different to dogs.
All true except for the water poisoning, which becomes true if we consider how much factories pollute…
Start with a noose, leftypaul
how is it being "fixed" currently
nice thread archived for future reference
They have an irc dedicated to keeping tabs on this place. Lets face it, we lost.
Well, there is talk now about term limits for congressmen, repealing some of the trade agreements that destroyed our middle class, etc.
We do? Damn we're good
Rich people aren't the problem. Exploitative class rule by the bourgeoisie is the problem. t. former temporary low-1%er because people really liked methoxetamine for some reason
You can observe and measure their physical and behavioral properties across a range of contexts and judge against established standards. That's exactly what you do in practice now. Nobody has ever judged two animals to be the same or different species by this mystical concept of "immutable nature." What happens when you replace "nature" with "soul" in this post? Metaphysics has no place in Marxist theory
I don't get it. How is a social system a material environment and our culture is not.
Your culture is part of a social system, so it is part of your material environment. It is the world you come into contact with and have to live in.
And that's all it is: TALK. Look at the pro-TPP lobbyists Trump is surrounding himself with on his transition team.
They don't get it either, user
When cain slew abel was it god's fault for making the culture?
I envy you if your outlook to everything in life is as simplistic as this
Yeah, my uncle is FBI and CIA so i know sll about you pinkos
But nobody can know what he greentexted-in-itself user
We use pattern recognition and make a fuzzy judgement call. We never go to the level of formulating a precise definition of cats and dogs because that's never necessary (or possible) in practice.
It's the same with "human nature": we can recognize a broad set of tendencies and statistical relationships and start making useful inferences (fuzzy, statistical rather than strictly logical).
Insisting on universal properties and absolute rigour is a type of tactical autism which is only every satisfied in a restricted set of problem domains (e.g. math, physics).
When the goal is to make inferences that are useful rather than absolutely true, some degree of "hand-waving"/fuzziness is unavoidable.
Here's a good example. "cat", "dog", "spic", "jap" are all just labels we plant on patterns in our brains, and then we sift individuals into those groups. At no point in this process do we require a strict definition of what any of these groups are, nor do we insist that individuals sorted into those groups all satisfy some universal property.
These patterns don't exist in reality, so saying that "X is a cat" really means "My brain recognizes X as belonging to the pattern "cat""; it's not making claims of any absolute cat-ness because such doesn't exist in reality, only in our perception of reality.
Now with these patterns we can start making useful inferences which are of a statistical rather than absolute nature.
For instance, the individuals I classify as "Aboriginal Australians" have the statistical property as a group of scoring an average 60 Autism Level. Using statistical relationships of Autism Level scores and mathematical aptitude, I can infer that individuals I classify as Aborigines won't be highly represented among the group of Fields Medal recipients.
At no point in this process is any absolute rigour needed; the whole show is run on imperfect, fuzzy, "right a certain percentage of the time" steps. And yet I'd be happy to bet large sums on the result.
But unless you're after absolute certitude, we rarely need to use strict logical definitions, universal properties and the like. You can cover much more ground, and get useful results (but not certainty) by using patterns and statistical reasoning.
The above is inspired by modern techniques in machine learning, and how they are much more accurate, and applicable across a much wider range of fields - this by orders of magnitude - than the "logical", "rules-based" AI of the 50s and 60s.
I am fond of that kind of thinking - my background is in math - but at some point I realized its region of applicability is dwarfed by the kind of pattern-based, "fuzzy" reasoning which is so often the target of ridicule in these kinds of debates.
I want to ask you something leftypol: are you against Not Socialism? If so why? From a very basic understanding of your ideology, it seems to me that Nazi does everything you want it to do economically + has the benefit of adding genetics to the mix, and a direction to the socialized society.
My second question is, if your ideology seeks to remove the upper class, how does it seek to remove the struggle for illicit power?
So what? Are you going to force all your citizens to take a spit test?
Is a spit test required to hazard a guess that this fellow might not be a native Swede?
communism is an outdated ideology that is simply unfit for the modern world. We need to make a new one because socialism is also fucking dead and marxism is seen as the ideology of complete lunatics, sadly.
Boy the Holla Forumsyps are triggered
Holla Forums is even more delusional than Holla Forums. You both are fucking retards stuck in the past.
so does that meanif i put a pattern on my brain i can see humans as cats? dude thats fucking awesome can you tell me how??
If you took certain drugs, might you see humans as cats?
There's your answer.
Who cares about what reactionaries and liberals think?
That's it? I guess I feel the Bern now!
Hi, pol here.
Pol is against the financial elite. Pol does not think that an immigrant contigent of less than 5% of the actual population is the reason people don't have jobs. Pol is anti-current establishment, if we get our establishment, then we are pro establishment. If this establishment becomes corrupt then we are anti establishment.
Keep going with the "enemy is ignorant" or overall "enemy is lesser" idea. You will always lose, as you did in america, last 9th november.
Oh look, another leftard that can't believe fucking Donald Trump is on the white house. The mere tought of Trump attempting to do something benefitial is inconceivable because he's not from the left. Kill yourselves, Holla Forums. You're the laughingstock of Holla Forums and no one takes you seriously.
You mean 95% of the population? Of course you have to care about fucking 95% of the population you retard. Say marxism in public and your opinion will automatically devaluate.
"One more time. Just one more chance. We'll get it right this time, we promise."
I fcuking hate all of you. Politics are fucking shit.
You mean Holla Forums? Did you go on the wrong board ?
But Capitalism isn't succeeding. It's fucking dying.
I hate to break it to you, but that's the fact. Capitalism, is dying. There's no argument to be made whether it was right or true, or what would that entail.
It is dying.
Despite what you were also led to believe, history has not yet ended, and there is no reason to suggest Capitalism goes on forever giving us Ice Cream.
How one signifies whether something won or lost is a hold over from idiotic Cold War posturing
I was pointing out all of the shitty failed Marxist states, and their usual reply that they weren't "true" and they just need another attempt under the right conditions.
I wasn't trying to point out how many Marxists there are.
Friendly fire incident.
Oh, I agree. The current form of capitalism is dying.
But Marxism is dead.
Can you briefly describe Marxism, in your own words?
Repeated, spectacular failure is a pretty good heuristic for determining whether something is worth trying again.
"The current form of capitalism"
There is no "current form." It's just capitalism. The same capitalism that Marx wrote about 150 years ago.
Also, Marx's spectre still haunts the globe, and it will until capitalism is dead and gone for good.
You are fucking stupid aren't you? I mean you must be this stupid if you think that is a good argument
Labour unions, Minimum wage, anti-child labour laws, socialized healthcare and universities, weekends, paid vacations and so on were all fought based on the idea of Marxism
No, I'm serious–what are you going to do about muh genetics? How are you going to define who gets to be in your nation?
Common sense will get you 95% of the benefits. Somalis aren't Swedes.
The other 5% - it's just 5%. Pragmatism trumps purity.
automation will make communism even more relevant
Some aeroplanes crash. Most don't.
Every one of those bizarre pedal-powered contraptions driven off a pier a hundred years ago failed spectacularly.
On balance, while both have failed, aeroplanes are generally seen as more successful than the steampunkbikeplanes.
It's not that hard to understand.
Common sense in genetics is about as laughable as genetics with identity politics.
no such thing
hey user, thats a pretty cool gulagposting you got there.
What if one of your citizens want to marry a Somali? What if they want to adopt one? Is sacrificing the individual's liberty at the alter of skin color that important to you? What does it say about your ideology that you have to prevent these things by force of law?
You have two ideologies, one you grew up with. One you didn't.
And a whole bunch of empty promises in between.
With the Cold War over, Capitalism fails again, and will rip itself apart more violently than any "Socialist state" ever could.
thats not how it works user
This is pretty smart for a right wing take on welfare, since it'll spectacularly implode from misuse and have to be nixed.
Cute analogy, but all of your talk is meaningless without context. The history of a sovereign state needs to be seen in detail–you can't just abuse made up statistics to pretend your assumptions fit reality.
One could point out the numerous socialist movements quashed by Western powers for its own ends, but that doesn't count because…uh…cucks?
Oh no, I believe it. Feel free to continue making excuses for how he will inevitably betray you (which he's already doing)
Anything done in the name of the United States is not "benefitial", even for people within its borders.
Except for the fact that nations with left-wing movements like Burkina Faso, Yugoslavia and even Cuba improved massively in terms of modernity and quality of life.
The only major movement that really spectacular failed was Maoist China–and tens of millions of people dying for dumb reasons is basically par for the course in Chinese history. Maoism these days is a laughingstock even to tankies.
In all honesty, I've never seen an example of a socialist state that I'd want to live in, and in most cases their own citizens risked their lives to escape.
There are very few examples of capitalist states I wouldn't mind living in.
Is that not context enough?
If you're going to gulagpost, atleast leave a conclusion you fucking newfag.
The offspring cannot receive citizenship.
Race is not a spook.
Genetics also refers to the fact that you encourage military training in men, young marriages, and thorough sports education from primary school.
What about my other questions?
It's usually not what you think it is, and genes usually wildly vary
Yes, I could.
Hardly. Those "daring survivors" from Cuba landing in the US? Butthurt rich people that lost their investments. This is why they protest thawing relations between Cuba and the US.
The Soviet bloc had a lot of escapees, but this is far more about authoritarianism than socialism. Economically, they were still lightyears ahead of the old monarchs.
So you'd end birthright citizenship? You'd be ok with children of your citizens not receiving full benefits of their parent's state?
It is the spook. It is a perfect example of what spooks even are.
No, that is simply being a controlling cunt that hates civil liberty.
Any ought that is incorrectly derived from "Race is" is a spook kid
because nations are a spook
In a second. Citizenship is received by men upon finishing military service, and by women upon marrying a citizen.
Let's leave race aside for a second. Assume that the flaw in my ideology is the desire to prevent miscegenation and that it is based on a spook. What about the other concepts?
In addition to genetics absolutely NOT referring to these things, how would your ideal state even be relevant in a world of gene-editing? archive.is/EpMxU
again, you cannot derive an ought from an is kiddo, your feelings and morals are irrelevant
Ok, i get it now. Culture, although not material, is a part of a social system which is (mostly) material.
These definitions seem quite arbitrary and very superficially defined.
How does one make a distinction between needs that are in the Base and those that are in the Superstructure?
For instance, can someone be considered a human if he has no morals, ethics and metaphysical beliefs. Can a materialist society exist without a party that serves as a stand-in for these beliefs?
Can bread succeed without the circuses?
So you're telling me that alcoholics don't breed alcoholics?
Who would be in charge of gene-editing?
What if I can?
They can move to Somalia?
Whites can get a tan and there are albino Africans. Skin colour is not race.
Little to nothing. Force of law is how anything is achieved in a state.
Humanity survived its first skirt with death as an endangered species near our beginning, with less than 2,000 individuals from massive die off caused from extreme drought.
For all purposes, we had no spears and used our hands and knees, at less than 2,000 people.
Today, we have over six billion, one of you included, from less than 2,000 individuals. And you are still human.
Do it, let me see how you commit Logical suicide
see last sentence here
All "oughts" are socially constructed, you can get them wherever you want.
Have you linked to the wrong post? I don't see anything of relevance there.
Want to know how I can tell that you're a cuck?
Have you ever been in a relationship before, and why would it be relevant to the argument if you haven't or have
Obviously. So how will you determine the race of your citizens? Genetics testing? And again, how will any of this matter when gene-editing tech becomes prevalent?
I actually think many Doom Sanders are better that any Doom Paul image.
It's relevant because we operate on two separate worldviews. You assume race is not real, I assume it is. I assume that it plays a role in the successful development of a society over time, and you assume it doesn't. Discussing this point to its bitter end will not lead to my fundamental issue with your brand of socialism: who ensures the balance of power and how does society find its direction?
The collective resource needs for both. It's really simple.
tssk tssk kid
moreover, if they are socially constructed, that means they can be socially deconstructed, making them powerless
kek, nice try kiddo
That's how Israel does it.
But as I've said earlier, you don't need a perfect technique. Common sense is sufficient most of the time: a child can sort people into races with an acceptable degree of accuracy.
And if you can get 99% accuracy with little effort, I'm not particularly concerned with the final 1%.
thats nice kid, what follows?
That's actually completely and totally wrong.
So a concept? Come on, this is a "improve your propaganda" thread, I'm trying to help you faggots along.
So what the both of you are saying is: lolbergtarianism?
Yeah, sure, what about the other points?
You won't stop us
I noticed you didn't address my final question.
If you falsely label right wing politics as neo-fascism then you seriously won't get anywhere, but left sure love to distort reality to fit their view, it's well known, this is why you are losing across the west. Modern day leftism is more similar to actual fascism than modern right wing nationalism, if you can't see that then you are truly uneducated on the matter or just plain unintelligent to say the least.
You honesly believe negative comments about Venezuela and Cuba are based on neo-fascism and isn't valid? Are you fucking retarded? Venezuela…? Why spew out such level of retardation, what world do you live in?
What stopped you the first time again :)
lmao, what a little impotent liberal, watch this
If you dont want to live near other people thats fine, if that is what your ego truly desires then there is no reason not to respect it
however, your egoism cannot stop other egoists from fullfilling their own
what other points, people are different, deal with it
What? What would be the concept?
You think a white child in, say, Sweden would not be able to sort a group of pictures into broad groups, like "sub-Saharan African", "East Asian", "Aboriginal Australian"?
I think a reasonably bright 6 year old would could do it with at least a 95% success rate.
No they wouldn't, because those aren't actual fucking races.
A child, like you apparently, would not be able to understand someone from Greece has the same similar DNA patterns as someone from Puerto Rico, originating from a time when you could walk from Java and Indonesia to mainland Indo-China because the ocean sea level was significantly lowered.
They also wouldn't be able to tell, that almost all of them originated from unknown groups from the Near East.
False, all of that is caused by nurture
humans are incapable of visually pointing out the differences between a sphere and a cube
Oh please, we're talking specifically about the strain of fascism fetishizing that's popular today. If you came from Holla Forums, you're just being disingenuous. There's a difference between a capitalist arguing against socialist policies and advocating for a ethnostate (which some of you are doing in this very thread)
Nigger you must be FUCKING delusional.
What stopped us was the allies led by a false jewish rhetoric that the world would get better. Communism has never worked. Socialism has never worked.
Yeah, no wonder you're getting your ass kicked left and right even by cuckchaners. Look faggot, I'm asking who ensures that illicit power does not come into play in your ideal society? It's a simple fucking question. Or is socialism "just the train that takes us to the promised land?"
The "collective resource needs for both" is a concept. Who channels those resources needs: a state actor, an entity of any kind, or is it the people themselves?
Physical attributes is what seperates the races the most, how is he wrong? You can't see the difference between a black person, an arab and a persian? Really? I can do that in the dark.
You know how easy it is to test it?
This thread is just pathetic. Really shows you how shit Holla Forums is.
OP asks our thoughts on how we should strategize against the alt-right, Holla Forums shows up, and suddenly we're all discussing racism, as if it were a viable intellectual position.
We are so autistic that we have to take the bait every fucking time. Before handling the alt-right, maybe we ought to get that problem sorted.
Doesn't really matter.
Oh man. Why are you talking about genetics when you don't know shit
Maybe form the alt left, not focused on autistic screeching anarchists and instead focus on freedom and liberty while maintaining strong tradition and scientific initiative.
lmao, what caused this sudden sissyfit of rage?
that fact that there is no power to begin with
I don't care what socialism is because I am not a socialist
I have about 20 unanswered (You)s, but here, as a favour I'll see what it was.
Gene-editing tech I imagine would focus on "performative" traits like Autism Level, disease resistance, longevity.
It would presumably be more complex to "edit" the more subtle traits that are shared among a people: there's research showing things like NW Europeans being more individualistic and less prone to ethnocentrism than other groups, and Hispanics favouring large government in relation to whites.
If culture is, in this way, downstream of genetics, then it wouldn't matter if, say, all the Aborigines became super-intelligent.
We want to be around "similar" people because we prefer the culture that arises, not because we believe in racial superiority. It's about preferences.
come the fuck on dude, if you want to solve it already, go behead some porkies
For one, most African Americans today, are more European, then say, someone from the Near East ten thousand plus years ago. And yet, ten thousand plus years ago, said people from the Near East, became Europeans.
This is not, orcs and elves. It is far more complicated than you think "This guy is black, he's white, and this guy is a jew".
It just does not work that way.
no you can't
Physical attributes are the most ready-accessible INDICATORS of underlying racial differences.
We can quickly sort into race based on photos with a high degree of accuracy (there's AI capable of this right now).
We're not saying the physical differences ARE race, just that they are ready handles by which to classify.
We have seen the extent of meme magic. All it can do is create memes, not change. This becomes more apparent by the day as Trump proves to be nothing more than the establishment stooge that we always warned that he was. Wall? Metaphorical. Ban muslims? Didn't really mean that. Put a stop to immigration? Just going to make them fill out the right papers at the border. Drain the swamp? lel have some lobbyists. Look out for working class whites? Wants to literally move the presidential residence to 5th Avenue.
And he has not even taken office yet.
It has become blindingly obvious to anyone who is even passively paying attention that the reality of President Trump is not in the slightest what his supporters had wanted. Trump's election was not a brick through the establishment's window. It accomplished absolutely nothing, and now Trump has been set up to take the fall for the impending derivatives crash.
Holla Forums is not in ascension. No, their plane is crashing with no survivors. They have just been made fools of, and even the neonazis see it. They are exactly what Holla Forums has redefined the word "cuck" to mean.
Again, just because you heard it on Holla Forums, does not make it true. This is not subjective. What you are saying is factually wrong.
Telling someone's genome apart from looking at them is about as stupid as fucking telling who's a witch if they can float.
no you can't, you think that what has been taought to you lets you do it
So what's the point of socialism then? If it doesn't matter, then it can be the government, it can be a corporation, or it can be the individual. What sets socialism apart from Nazi or lolberg?
an intellectual giant
There's multiple forms of socailism as bridge to anarchist communism, and some that don't want to progress past socialism. And just plain anarchism.
You have to be more specific and read to ask "What's the point of socialism", because you can get wildly different answers.
To me, "To each according to their ability, and need", is a better organization of society then, "This guy is black this guy is white, let's play Orcs and Elves"
you are just proving once again you are just an impotent liberal
the fact that you want to coerce power over others means that you are still buttmad someone coerced power on you
It seems like an incomplete ideology tbh, which is why normies reject it. It also doesn't help that you have Bernie as the face of your movement.
Blistering political analysis
You are confusing radicalism with reformist thought. The two are about as similar as someone whittling a piece of wood and logging.
Here's an example of an algorithm classifying by ethnicity with a 94% success rate:
That's from a facial photo, and I'd hazard a guess that humans currently perform better.
That could work. Take the alt-right's strongest talking points and drop all the paranoid racist shit. Make it about retaking the West from Cultural Capitalism. Inform people that immigrants should be the least of our worries in this regard.
If you want to shitpost with the Nazis, do it in a separate thread.
We should really be pushing this. They have incredibly irrational expectations about Trump. The thing that worries me, though, is that it could push them towards actual fascism. How do we prevent that?
Don't get upset at me, that's what it seems. After fucking 100 posts of trying to get an explanation all I get is that socialism is: "Meh, it's whatever you want it to be."
You say socialism, I think Bernie.
anarchism is generally much more appealing to normies as it provides a quick and easy answer for why cold-war era states turned into shitholes. Whether or not you actually are an anarchist, it may be helpful to pretend to be an anarchist to get normies on your side and then deal with whatever you believe are more effective revolutionary methods later. At the very least they'll be socialists even if they don't have the best understanding of how to achieve socialism.
It's only been 11 days lad. You won't have much success with it. Also, the media is already doing this.
Most of them will be so thoroughly disillusioned by the end of his presidency that they'll be ashamed they flirted with that ideology. For the rest of 'em… just bash the fash.
Alright? So you're comparing Democratic Socialist reform at its most liberal to a million (hyperbole) different types of collectivist theory.
Why? Even if you don't agree, this is just silly.
Get better propaganda. First and foremost you have to reject that cuck with everything you have. He's shown himself to be spineless on numerous occasions.
We don't think Sanders is the be all end all of socialism.
Also, I wouldn't throw around the word "cuck" so easily when you have debased yourself supporting and defending Trump.
Anarchism doesn't directly address any of the problems we're facing as a society. It could easily become just another distraction.
The alt-right completely disregards mainstream media. I'm talking about the internet specifically. You don't know what sort of delusions they'll develop next.
I hope so.
Right-wing fascists aren't having a large impact on modern politics, why do you believe this, because they share nationalistic views? What a silly strawman argument if so. The individual is without value in a fascist society, exactly the opposite of right wing politics.
The current right wing that is blossoming rejects any and all ideas that are fundamental in fascism, they oppose it, fascism has been falsely labeled right wing for decades by people like you. You don't even understand your "enemy", how will you ever be able to combat them?
Inbefore you think Nazi are behind the rise in nationalism, you couldn't be more wrong if so.
Why do the left always fail at identifying and understanding their political enemy everytime? I guess that's why you won't abandon your miserable tactic of name-calling and trying to silence speech. You just don't posses the ability to recognize your enemy for what they truly are and arguing for your cause in a civil manner.
A "cuck" acts loudly against their group self-interests, in the belief that this signals high status to a perceived elite.
Trump supporters believe he will act in their interests, whether or not that turns out to be the case.
There is no parallel.
Do you even understand the people you're defending? We're not talking about milquetoast country club Republicans dude. Ask your Holla Forums buddies how much they value "individualism" and how would individuals fit into their ideal society.
You are missing the point, the point isn't what Nazi Holla Forumsacks believe, the point is that you are giving that part of Holla Forums too much credit for the rise of right wing nationalism, you don't combat it by taking on Nazi members of Holla Forums, they are not related in most aspects. Most people that are referred to as neo-fascists here will look at you as if you are a lunatic and carry on with their white nationalism because they aren't connected on an ideological level.
You would have to be an outstanding cuck to believe he would ever serve your interest
And what on earth makes you think Socialism would be any better at distributing food? History has proven that socialist states are range from appallingly bad to outright genocidal when it comes to distributing resources.