Holy shit Tuck might actually be our guy

youtube.com/watch?v=Rnny2C1RFHk

Holy shit Tuck might actually be our guy.

I'm not trolling, watch the video first.

And I'm on tor, so i couldn't paste a link.

Other urls found in this thread:

iww.org/es/culture/articles/tsunami/tsunami4.shtml
cis.org/Unionism%26ImmigrationPolicy
econdataus.com/tradeall.html
census.gov/library/visualizations/2014/demo/the-second-great-wave-of-immigration-growth-of-the-foreign-born-population-since-1970.html
solarlove.org/shell-bullish-on-solar-despite-dropping-solar-but-much-more-in-its-new-scenarios-than-that/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Who is this ravishing semite?

Every time I look at Tucker Carlsons face I want to fucking vomit no thank you.

you fags are worthless

...

i loved the anti-liberal stuff, anyways if he's not a marxist leninist, he's not my comrad

He's right in this case

No, a classic Fox News tactic is to take some guy from the left that they think is going to be ridiculous and use him or her as a sort of living strawman for what the left is like.

Tuck was just mad because the SocAlt guy wasn't being the caricature he wanted him to be.

that's a really nice pic related jew, OP

"You're not a socialist, you're a liberal!"

I'm not sure I see what he's arguing for (I assume that students should support Trump because muh working class). I mean students can protest Trump without supporting Hillary. Luckily for him the student either did not pick up on that or could not state his case clearly.

This site is an aberration

...

*Fox
Jesus

Tuck nat-soc now ? Comfy

Also
The immigrants are working class too. If wages go down for citizens here, it is because they went up for immigrants. The guy seems much more experienced with socialism than most (maybe him or someone in his crew flirted with socialism at some point) but yeah he's full of shit, it's just less apparent than the kid.

How would wages go up for immigrants? There's would be an increase in supply of labor, reducing wages for all workers.

Unions you bourgy fuck

These workers immigrating into the US did not appear out of thin air. They already existed outside of the US borders. What were the immigrants earning beforehand? It's an increase in the supply of labor available within the US. When these workers were outside of the US, they were probably earning less, which is why they came to the US in the first place.

Protectionist policies against immigrants may raise the wages of workers already here (provided you also heavily restrict outsourcing), but at the cost of workers' wages elsewhere.

that's not his point

He kinda was though. He deliberately dodged his questions and then went to moan about liberal talking points.
Tucker expected "Socialists" to bring something new but heard MSNBC instead. He could've recognized how Trump's message is valid but misdirected, he could've given a socialist analysis for the causes of immigration but just stood there preaching the choir.

the end game is that wages will remain low unless bourgs are expropriated.
"redistributing" what's left after surplus value is extracted won't get anyone anywhere.
It's pretty terrible that people like that will be the face of our little "strike"against "fascism" though.

I feel perhaps this could be clearer with an example.

Take for example two countries A and B of roughly equal populations where immigration is restricted from B to A and all the companies hiring workers are based in country A while B is some poorer shithole. Let's also assume that there are barriers to outsourcing to where workers in A and B can find employment just as easily at their respective wages.

All the Pedros in B earn $1.00 per hour while all the Peters in A earn $2.00 per hour.

Now suppose the country A got rid of it's restrictions on immigration and all the Pedros in be fled to a in search of economic opportunity. Peters who lived in A before see their wages decrease to $1.50 an hour. Pedros who fled from B see their wages increase to $1.50 an hour.

The Peters lost wages. The Pedros got higher wages. Everything more or less evens out for the workers overall.

Why does tucker always have that stupid look on his face when speaking to any opposition what so ever?

Yes I see what you are saying now

yes of course. The real loser is the working population who in either situation is still necessarily a victim of exploitation as long as there exists a bourgeois to exploit them. Essentially all these fights about immigration pit workers from different countries against each other. That's all nationalism is. A way to divert attention away from class consciousness.

Most of that guy's points were pretty good. There's no need to legitimize Trump.

What does "legitimize" mean, exactly?

How is worker's nationalism and a total rejection of the elite less class conscious than neoliberal normieism?

Make Trump or his positions look legitimate. Trump should be opposed at all fronts. You can seize the anger that helped elect Trump without legitimizing his views or policies.

There's no such thing as "worker's nationalism.

The proletariat have no nation.

Trump already is legit.
You need to delegitimize his racist supporters (who are a minority) but his platform (which he won't follow) was mostly solid.
We really need to give Anti-fa a clear presence in this instead of just plain "socialism" and red flags if this is going to work. Else it's completely fucked.
There's no reason to demonize him.

that's just contrarianism and you know it.

I'm just trying to understand what this legitimation process actually is, besides you seeing the proles as unwashed idiots you think you might be able to manipulate through the sheer force of your principled opposition?


And how is this international proletariat going to form? Sunni and Shi'ite going to stop squabbling any time soon? Or is 'left'-neoliberalism supposed to make us one universal culture, then class conscious after?

What a surprise.

are you reddit or Holla Forums? I really can't tell.

Okay

The proletariat are already international. Nation-states exist for the exclusive benefit of the bourgeois class. To further the goals of the working class, we need to promote class consciousness, which is in opposition to the nationalist narrative.

I was about to ask the same thing.

WRONG
THE LARGEST GROUP OF UNION MEMBERS WERE THE ONES WHO DIDN'T VOTE AT ALL

Do you have anything else besides stock Marxist talking points, as in words that more track to the current situation in some tangible way? To me it seem like it's almost as if we're in a different world to 100-150 years ago, and Lenin's categorical framework is so much empty prose poetry.

Not voting was in some sense an implicit vote for Trump, everyone knew this. With all the focus on the popular count, considering the media propaganda saturation, I find it astonishing that the turn out was… ordinary.

It's not so much that nationalism is less class conscious as that workers would not be neoliberals. If we have basically free movement across borders and neoliberalism then either they would become nationalists or they would become socialists.

That's not to say that open borders is something that workers' movements should focus on, because in that situation, as we've seen time and time again, a large section of the population moves toward fascism when you do that, especially if the supposed workers movements look like they're supporting a neoliberal political establishment. Workers' movements can stand in solidarity with workers abroad and perhaps be moderately pro immigration but it should not be a focus. The goal is to move past sectional fighting between workers which is difficult because there's a lot that divides workers. This is not really the traditional leftypol "idpol kills everything" answer. I do think socialists should welcome immigrant workers, but they shouldn't make fighting for open borders in a capitalist world a priority. When the capitalists prevent freedom of movement, we decry the bad conditions here and worse conditions abroad. When neolibs open borders we point to what is really making workers' lives miserable: capitalism not immigration. Never support the establishment whether neoliberal or nationalist.

Nationalism is essentially an appeasement program here and thus should not be thought of as more or less class conscious than neoliberalism but rather a self-correcting mechanism within capitalism. A section of workers (and more likely petty bourgeois as that's often the base of fascist movements iirc) will seek to gain higher wages at the expense of other workers.


Nice meme tbh.

Nation-states no more serve the proletariat today than they did a hundred years ago, I don't see any need to change the language.

why? the ballot box is secret. That's the same thing as saying voting Jill was voting Trump.
Voting Jill/Johnson/not voting was refusing to accept the Media's narrative that he was Hitler but it definitely wasn't recognizing that his intentions were valid. I'd bet over half the people who voted for him did it for economic purposes rather than xenophobia.

I think there's some differing definitions of nationalism and I just find the wholesale antagonism to it from the econ left, to the point many will vehemently defend the neoliberal status quo as lesser evilism, puzzling.

The idea is that if the workers are nationalist and socialist then it's literally hitler reeeeeee? I don't see them in diametric opposition either.

And i fail to see what motivates this other than the Lenin-esque tactical ideology, which hurts my head.

That's kind of what I mean, the fact he was portrayed as an existential Hitler tier threat and people shrugged is a big deal in itself imho

Also,
Just because there are going to be Trumpist apologists no matter how full swamp he ends up going, doesn't mean the base didn't overwhelmingly stop giving a fuck what the elite was telling them to believe

Well Marxbots come across as barely Turing-able when you talk like this, honestly. Buzzword blizzard. I've read it all I know all this. Repeating it enough times at me won't do anything, you'll have to literally imprison or kill me to get me to go along with it as is, which I'm sure many of you would happily do.

People inherently care about the people around them, and the principles and values of their society, and culture.

Nothing necessarily racist or chauvinist about this. We aren't illiterate peasants any more, the case for "false consciousness" being necessary to remove by force if necessary by a vanguard gets more tenuous by the day. If anything dogmatic Marxists are the ones that seem to be suffering from alienated, delusional thinking, and books can't really fix that, fam

Someone please answer this man

Except for all the Republicans who thought not voting was an implicit vote for Hillary, you fucking retard.

the issue is that nationalism is inherently sectional. If you remember my example about wages from before, it's essentially workers from country A realizing they can rase their wages by $0.50 again rather than abolishing the wage system entirely. It's fighting over scraps and energy entirely wasted if you actually seek to fight for socialism.

Aside from that, socialism in one country doesn't really work. Generally in such situations, resources will be scarce, which naturally lends itself to capitalism. The "socialist country" in question has to resort to participating in international trade with other capitalist countries, meaning they will have to raise funds make profit etc. An army will have to defend the country, meaning not only is a state necessary, but it will have to somehow find the money to hire these workers meaning it needs to take some of the value of the labor of its workers. This sort of situation lends itself to state capitalism or capitalism outright.


I would say if socialist are not protesting the capitalist establishment at any given time, they're probably not socialists. That being said, neoliberalism lends itself to socialist revolution much more than nationalism does. Nationalism not only pins the nation's problems on foreigners as a diversion, it uses foreigners to define a certain in-group. That is, it says, this our group is all the people who aren't Jewish/black/mexican etc. Essentially creates a dichotomy in which the workers and the capitalists of one nationality are fighting against all these foreigners. If you've read the social contract, it essentially creates a sovereign that includes workers and capitalists who both seek to fight against these foreigners, where otherwise there would be a different alignment of the general wills according to class such that you'd have a general will of workers against a general will of capitalists. Even if you were to take a more aggressive stance against the bourgies in your country instead and include the bourgeois in your list of outsiders, what you have to remember is that in such a scenario, you will not only be fighting against the bourgeois in your nation. You will be fighting against them and their allies elsewhere, as well as the workers who you've deemed outside the nation. Only a united working class is strong enough to confront the united bourgeois.

The goal is to overcome these sectional interests in favor of an internationalist socialist movement. Which is admittedly difficult.


Not a leninist. Can't be a christian and a marxist and besides I generally like the leftcom critique of Lenin better (he meant well but fucked up at a few crucial moments).


If you watched the webm related I posted you would see that the history of capitalists siding with the fascists goes deeper than that. You have to think about why. Of course fascism with its economic protectionism means that the capitalists often can't function as efficiently, but nationalism is always unstable and temporary and means the class system continues in at least a very warped state. Communism is the negation of the present state of things.

See the other post. I don't recall the entire global media et al. for 6 months screeching that a vote for Hillary is a world-historical catastrophe and evil in principle. I do remember a Macedonian shitposter's frog drawing alleging some bullshit about WW3 but it didn't quite get the same traction. Everyone knew Hillary is a vote for status quo no matter how many Republicans already loathed her.

*by the social contract I mean Rousseau's social contract. Apologies if that was unclear.

Oh also to clarify on that last point, keep in mind how this sort of right-wing rejection of the elite is not exactly the same as the left's. Do you honestly think all these "anti-elite" Trump supporters would be pissed of at porky if Porky was anti-PC, anti-muslim etc. They certainly don't seem to mind Trump (reasonably wealthy porky). Nor do they mind FOX news which is owned by Rupert Murdoch (VEEEEERRRRRRRY wealthy old guy). In fact they assert that fox news, the media arm of the second most popular party in the United States which now controls all three branches of government, is somehow anti establishment. Why? Because they FOX is anti-PC. Once again we see how the diversion works. People are lead to believe that two old rich white men, one in state power, one in charge of a massive media conglomerate, represent the anti-establishment. Why? Cause they're not libcucks therefore subversive.

Do you prefer gulag or wall.

I was thinking perhaps a gulag where the prisoners are all nationalists of different nationalities. The gulag wont have enough guards to defend it should the inmates unite, but this would require the nationalists to recognize that they have common cause with with foreign nationals. We could play up competition between the nationalities so that uniting has to be a conscious effort.

But, yeah, nations are artificial political constructs invented in the 19th century. If you can feel loyalty to a nation, you can feel loyalty to your class.

The only overlap we have with Tucker Carlson is that we are both critics of the modern day left. However, we are both critics for vastly different reasons.

Thanks for this detailed response. I get the historical cases of fascism but I don't know how applicable they are to the current situation, nor do I think all nationalism is racist, racialist, or chauvinist in character, at all. To me it's like the argument that "every time communism has been tried it fails". I'm maybe a cultural nationalist I guess.

I think neoliberalism is a MORE unified global bourgeoisie and makes eventual revolution LESS possible. Such revived nationalism would probably only be temporary. I don't fantasize about a glorious 1000 year reich, nor rebirth or any of that bullshit. I don't think whites are special snowflakes. I'd like to see 'separate but equal' nation-states or something, working together for actual justice in the world. A global shadow elite pulling the strings which neoliberalism guarantees kind of stops that. All social progress within its parameters is either illusory or a temporary concession, concealling a deeper ill.

I see capitalism and technology as permanent revolution and any attempt at communism with a unified proletariat as absolutely and totally unrealistic at this stage, and find the whole neoliberal project to be horrifying and antithetical to ever accomplishing it.

Neoliberal consumerist capitalism opposes Christianity. A sensible nationalism can see it as part of heritage, and respect it as such. And it makes social democratic reformism possible, until capital is fully developed enough to be surpassed, but I see that as maybe a century off tbh.

W E W

Nations only exist in contrast to what is outside of them.

That's a valid point I suppose.
I sort of am as well in the sense that I don't think separate cultures will all disappear under communism. I just think borders and countries will disappear. People would generally only move to another cultural community in a communist society if they accepted the cultural norms there.

That being said there are two issues that you haven't addressed from the other post which are not about historical examples of fascism but rather about the issues it poses if combined with a geniune workers' movement:


and


The bourgeois will always unite in the face of a threat to capitalism if it's serious enough. And borders require a state and likely an army as well which is incompatible with communism.


I agree that neoliberalism opposes christianity, but nationalism is also explicitly opposed to the tenets of christianity ("no Jews or Greeks, no men or women" or something along those lines is a repeating phrase in the New Testament). Not to mention the New Testament's subversion of Jewish nationalism.

I don't think that's necessarily the case and the polarization of segmented media amplifies this black and white distinction which is largely based on stereotypes and propaganda. Or that ideology makes you look at it wrong. The "right" are just liberals from 40 years ago and can be forgiven of their ills if the left can. Teh left tends to be just as bigoted on a personal level but cognitive dissonant about it from my experience. The "they're liberals, we're not" isn't that helpful a distinction, considering the True Left is all but dead.

Why not both?

I think your violence fantasies are pretty funny, by all means, please continue, and telling me which spooks, in your expert diagnosis, are capital punishment worthy.

if you can justify killing "reactionaries" in abstract self-defense, why shouldn't we do the same to murder-fetishists like you first?

I guess I'm 'reformist until communism actually possible', and you are too, unless you think the working class are going to unite tomorrow, we just have different ideas of the realistic path to get there, I see neoliberalism as a totalitarian cancer on humanity, and a return to 70's style socdem as fine for now.

fair enough. I am interested in what this non-chauvanist, non racist nationalism looks like though. how would that work exactly? How does the in-group define itself without first defining an outsider? What will be the goals of said in-group?

That's how a revolution works. The liberal wars and revolutions that established nationalism showed no mercy to the old feudalists and absolutists, why should we be different?

And I appreciate your detailed replies, I'd respond in more depth but I guess I'm just disillusioned more than anything, and I've been shitposting all day instead of resting again and have a headache now.

Let's keep the Holla Forums and Holla Forums interfaith dialogue open tho :)

I can answer that for you.

It doesn't exist. Nations only exist in opposition to what is outside of them. He's in all likelihood a Holla Forumsyp who thinks he's being sneaky by advocating some sort of "tolerant" nationalism, and thus getting people to accept the nationalism meme.

Praise Kek!

Maybe I'll post a thread at some point and elaborate on this stuff, there's mainly complete hostility to my views here obviously but if there's some interest in an alternative perspective it's probably worth while me writing some serious posts or whatever.

I gotta lie down for a bit. Bye. :)

I love the way Tuck's ripping his asshole to shreds. Hopefully if enough shitlibs get shrek'd by Trump talking points, they'll wake up soon enough.


Unions require strikes in order to accomplish anything. Migrants are scabs, that is their one and only economic function, they come here to underbid us. Using unionization to mitigate scabs is oxymoronic nonsense.


(TOR trips checked)
Nations exist to enforce laws within their borders. Transnationalism of the form modern corporations and past colonial empires take, exist to abuse the arbitrage between different nations' laws for profit, and eventually degrade them all in a vicious cycle to zero. Globalism, of the sort socialists aspire to, means raising all legal codes up to parity at as lofty a height as possible, and is utterly opposed to transnationalism.

Mass economic immigration and offshoring, among other types of neoliberalism, are both mechanisms through which this arbitrage is done, and as such any prosperous nation must enact protectionist policies such as migrant quotas and fair trade mandates.

Burning down the 1st-world will only set us back to the status quo antebellum from before socialists organized labor to form what would become the 1st-world, a much weaker position for us, and much stronger for capitalists. Instead, we must secure our existing victories as launchpads for further victories, in a continuous cycle of consolidation and expansion.

Caught the Holla Forumsyp.

No ones falling for your memes.

Maybe you should make an infographic showing how to detect and avoid Holla Forums's crypto-nationalist propaganda incase your comrades adopt it via the toxic osmosis of being exposed to arguments?

...

Gulag yourself, reactionary

Were you always this much of a boring, repetitive faggot, or is it just since you self-appointed as guardian and protector of the working class, one man shield of the immortal Communist Idea from the NEET interlopers? What does being from Holla Forums even mean? Does anyone here not read it?

Seriously, your answer to immigration is unions, but what would the unions do if more and more immigrants kept pouring in? They would be ignored, and replaced.

In the short term, before global revolution has completed, and the disparities that allow arbitrage no longer exist anywhere on earth, there is one and only one way to stop mass economic immigration:

Ban it

First, you're mixing up nations and states. Nations are a much spookier concepts.

Second, the erosion of the welfare state has nothing to do with nationalism or trans nationalism. It's the natural result of the logic of capitalism.

It means what it sounds like. You're from the fascist board at the top of the board list.

...

...

Always a white person saying this, because your a rootless cosmopolitan that hates your family and patriotism is gauche. You're too stupid to be this condescending to all the peoples of the world who have fought to liberate their nation. Tell it to the Indian Nations, how deluded and primitive they are.
Hahaha
Yet the welfare state was only ever set up within the capitalist states, it was eroded by neoliberalism, partially due to tacit class collaboration by smug bourgie Marxists who told the proles they were better off and that their heritage and connection to their culture was unmitigated Hitler. Useful idiots like yourself, for example.

Zombies like you actually think you know better and it's pathetic/hilarious, you'll kill for it (in your mind), you think anyone who disagrees is intellectually dishonest or delusional by default. It's funny how the intelligenstia leftists are the first ones into the gulag when Leninists actually take over, you poor sweet, sad little drone.

Both words are somewhat ambiguous. "Polity" for the legal entity and "culture" for the spooky entity are about as specific as English gets.

Anyway, I'm not talking about the welfare state, at least, not just that. I'm talking about our entire regulatory environment, over industrial standards, commercial standards, construction, consumer products, services, housing, infrastructure, the environment, human rights, democracy, checks and balances, etc. On top of that the rigor and enforcement of our legal and justice system, as compared with the weaker and more corrupt systems in the 3rd-world.

Not really. They're not going to be paying the workers in the other country any more. This is just a depreciation of wages for everyone in the nation for the benefit of porky.

Gain more power over the cappies and seize the means of production???

Your indian nation is a spook, its as shitty as a white nation

gb2 >>>Holla Forums fascist

And yet you accuse ME of being the racial chauvinist haha.

Yeah, remember that as numerous as they may seem on your doorstep, only a tiny fraction can ever actually emigrate. The overwhelming majority can never leave, and those reparations only go so far.

Swarms of penniless unemployed immigrants+striking natives who refuse to work=?

How am I the fascist when i'm actually trying to prevent it?

I am accuwing you for being a spooked cunt. Nations are a bourgeoise invention. Dont play victim here, it wont serve you no good


Unemployed migrants and striking natives should be unionized against capitalism, the only distinction that exist is propietors and workers


Fascism is capitalism in decay, there is no other materialist definition, bourgeoise idealist definitions are not of our interest

Race and ethnic idealists are an enemy of the materialist working class, no ifs or buts

LET ME FUCKING POST

Roots are for vegetables. I can, and will, tell foreign nationalists this.

The welfare state could only exist while it served capitalist profit and protected key capitalist states from mass insurrection. The welfare state stopped serving capitalist profits in the late 70s and the capitalist class no longer felt threatened after the fall of the Warsaw Pact in the early 90s. Neoliberalism ramped up each time accordingly.

I do find it hilarious that you call me a robot for not having loyalties to some arbitrary plot of land. I'll admit it may be somewhat easier for me though, considering that "my people" are a deplorable lot who've never done anything admirable in the entirety of their history, but ultimately the logic is the same. The narrative of national struggle is a false one, and runs contrary to that of class struggle.

All of you Marxbots could be replaced by consumer level AI tomorrow and no one could tell the difference.

WHY CAN'T I FUCKING POST?

Try splitting it up into smaller posts dude

I CAN POST ANYTHING ELSE

Automation will only lead to crisis, the producer needs consumers and the credit bubble can only grow so big before it pops

We will welcome if cappies fully automate society for us to take over

Unions are, at their core, a form of boycott. If an infinite flood of gullible rubes is constantly being sucked in and ignoring you, boycotts don't work.

Unionization and mass economic immigration are fundamentally opposed.


Try attaching a screenshot instead of posting text. Also, try using another browser.

Good! That is the point

Mass economic immigration will only lead to stronger worker sentiment and stronger working class to aid us in the class struggle, our strength is in numbers


Which one is iy?

Welfare state still exists in most developed countries, its just no longer redistributive. Neoliberalism was insufficiently opposed by a civil society populated with self-righteous academics who saw it as a shortcut to international proletariat and it allowed the destruction of unions. You REFUSE to admit a welfare state could exist again, but that's just because you, or someone you read, thinks it's tactically inopportune, dubious that this is based on honest, truthful analysis.

Nation is not loyalty to a plot of land. That's country. Borders are pragmatic not a God. Not everyone needs a political article of worship. States define borders, also. You can have a nation across several countries, it's called diaspora. Nations don't have to be ethnic or religious either. It's just shared, compatible, values and culture, basically. It's people who want to live together. That's it. I happen to like other peoples and will happily live with them. White people are boring. Neoliberal multiculturalism is incoherent though, and it's inevitable it would wind down, deal with it.

There's no way it's that long. I think I've surmised:

1. Fucking up the captcha freezes the website on mobile
2. Refreshing and copy pasting a post fucks up the captcha, freezing the website
3. Thus, I would have to retype the paragraph.
4. BO is a jackass for adding a captcha.
5. Hotwheels is a shit coder

How is bringing desperately poor, heavily indoctrinated peasants from the 3rd-world, and allowing porky to funnel them directly into the jobs of uppity workers "aiding our strength in numbers"?

Organizing labor takes time, to deprogram the classcuck spooks out of people, and teach them self-respect, we have to ingest these people in small bites. We can't do that in an environment where human bodies are being shipped around like oil barrels.

Not the guy you were replying to. In any case, I think he was obviously joking about our "impenetrable" rhetoric, not literally talking about the job market.


This! I always hear the same defeatist rhetoric:
Revolutards need to stop pushing the peas around their plate, and admit that what we have today are the successful fruits of reformism, which we must continue getting more of.


This also happened without a CAPTCHA, especially in the election thread during the election when people were posting at a mile a minute. Hotwheels IS a shit coder, like I said before, just try posting a screencap of your post and/or using a different browser.

The same way it did in america, poor uneducated peasants formed the IWW and one of the most class conscious societies ever

It fucks up with the superstructure, it forces people to realize capitalism is not utopian

We already realise capitalism is not utopian, and consumerism is fucked. We woke now bra, 2016 is not 1926. We don't need academic faggots pushing us around and telling us we have the false consciousness when they're unbelievably retarded themselves.

But not the vast majority, they truly belive we live in the end of history

I don't see why you can't see that this is all systematic. Recent years have shown exactly what the problem with the welfare state is, that it leaves the bourgeois class still in charge of the economy, and thus the size and extent of the welfare state only goes so far as the bourgeoisie will allow it, and it is dismantled when it no longer serves them. You can see that this is systematic, right? History doesn't run in reverse, but even if it did, rebuilding the welfare state would be an exercise in futility as everything you fought decades for is undone in a couple of years. We need to move beyond capitalism. Not that this is much worth discussion, moving beyond capitalism will be our only alternative in the coming years as capitalism falls into deeper crisis and the nostalgic dream of a comprehensive welfare state becomes little more than a nostalgic dream.

Nations are little more than the figment of our collective imaginations. They aren't real and you gain nothing from showing loyalty to them. You might become the useful idiot of a right-wing movement though.

Remember, however, that one of the core tenets of unionism back then was opposition to immigration. As corny and fake as it sounds now, they were anti-immigration, pro-immigrant. Tourniquet the bleeding, clean the wound.

Regarding the Wobblies specifically, their primary goal was actually the formation of unions worldwide, stopping mass economic immigration at its source.

Nice meemee
iww.org/es/culture/articles/tsunami/tsunami4.shtml

I'll happily temporarily side with the ebin right over obstinate, dissembling, angry misanthropes like you who think you are entitled to rule over us all because you read a book. I've read the same books and reached different conclusions, tough shit.

I have a purely systematic view, I don't believe in retarded ideas like history running "backwards" or "forwards" lel. I'm cautiously optimistic. You are the utopian if you think your conditions for revolution are possible just because you want them to be. Arguing with people like you has shown me just what the character of the revolution will be in current year, and thanks but no thanks, you're not infallible because of your screed, it's plain to me you'll fuck it up, big league. I would prefer not to.

...

Nah people are more woke than before. The liberals have cooked their minds and are acting so irrational the kids coming up today will no doubt be like "wtf", research why everyone's so nuts, kek, meme eachother into full class consciousness before the window closes forever. Utopian maybe but it's a small bit of hope in an otherwise entirely bleak situation.

t. Porkie

Except porky is the humanist, the moralist, the altruist

That's just the brainwashed post-Reagan unions:
cis.org/Unionism%26ImmigrationPolicy

Organized labor is broken, and will stay broken, until it firmly rejects neoliberalism once more.

Ayn Rand is that you?

...

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that a socdem would side with fascists against the left. It's what you've always done, telling yourselves you're saving civilization as you lay out the red carpet for the fascists.

But if you were paying even the remotest bit of attention to the world economy, you'd know that capitalism is stuck in a rut it can't get itself out of, and economic conditions are only going to decline from here. The utopian dream is the idea of a reborn 20th century reformed welfare capitalism. That's not where the economy is headed, that's not where society is headed. The only choices before us are socialism and barbarism, and you have chosen barbarism because it fulfills some ideological or nostalgic need. We have good reason to regard you as enemies.

It must be nice to see everything in such stark contrasts. Well if it's war it's war, but we tried to reason with you. ^_^

The most hilarious part is, is that these kinds of people voted for trump because they are unemployed and hope he can get their jobs back. Even though they tell others to get skills that the market demands.

Every fascist system that ever came to be was swept in by a host of SocDems

This is not true in case of Italy,Spain,Portugal during that era. Only case of this happening was in Germany but even there left-wing parties and socdems were minority and not in the government at the time.

You're nothing but komsomol day 1 talking points, it's kinda depressing. Keep screeching "fascist" and trying to lecture me about history you clearly have a solid grasp on from this meme youve given me here. I',m sure it will work, you facile nitwit.

Says the state capitalism apologist

SocDems had laid the road out for the fascists well in advance.

You literally said you'd side with the fascists.

When did I do that?

You did it by praising revolution over reformism

I said side with the right.

Fascists were response politically to the rise of communists in their representative countries. In Spain it rose against anarchists, in Italy it rose against communists and it did the same thing in Germany too.

Reformism IS state capitalism, if it isn't just normal liberal capitalism with a human face.


The militant wing of any rightist movement during a time of capitalist crisis are going to be the fascists, even if you'd like to imagine that they're more moderate than they actually are.

This thread is giving me second-hand embarrassment. Spurdo and piratefag never fail to deliver

And they were supported by the SocDems, either passively or actively.

Murderous communists siding with insane SJW's to further neoliberalism for no actual reason is not provoking authoritarian activation how?

You have no understanding of situation, you can spout dogma but that's it, you have nothing to contribute here. You just hate your people irrationally and don't care what happens to them, you're a fetishist parrot and your opinion's trash my guy

Socdems where thrown to the concentration camps in Italy and Germany comrade.
In Spain they were suppressed and jailed.

Nearly every enduring democracy and labor movement is the result of reform. Nearly every revolution has terminated in totalitarianism and oppression, including every (fascist and Leninist) state capitalist regime.

Urging for revolution is urging for state capitalism.


3spooky5me m8

Stirnerfags are the fedora atheists x1000, except they only have ONE MEME

Stirner memes are like the most annoying SJW doublethink possible. Keep distinguishing yourselves by somehow managing to be worse I guess.

And identitarian, such as nationalists like you, are the barebacking Thai ladyboy-grade breeding grounds for one strain of parasitic memes.

Give it up guys it's stale

r/athiests are only cringey because the people they harangue are already either secular or apathetic to the point of lapse. Your spook infestation, on the other hand, is cultist-grade.

Wow a thought terminating cliche, and here I was thinking you were all the intellectual heavyweights, feared and respected in academic circles, yet according to a close reading of your own doctrine, you are a bourgeois abberration. Weird.

SocDemery. Not even once.

How exactly are we siding with le esjews? Because we're not a bunch of reactionaries that wank it to their flag?

The only one spouting dogma here is you. You've got a very narrow range of nationalist and SocDem talking points and you just spout them over and over.

And, considering who "my people" are, I think I have a very rational reason to despise them.


There are no "enduring democracies". They're merely dictatorships of the bourgeoisie with weak facsimiles of a voting franchise.

And any lasting reform was invariably due to revolution. Either at home or elsewhere. It was no accident that the sweeping liberalization of Europe came on the heels of the French Revolution, or that the good majority of SocDem reforms came after the successful Bolshevik Revolution.

Reminder that the Spurdo faggot thinks he deserves a place in the one world nomenklatura presiding over several billion ants because he can repeat the same tired, 100 year old fucking lines from Lenin about socdem betrayals ahahahaha. You're fucking stupid kid. Honestly how are you not executed by the local politburo down at your community college for being effectively counter-propaganda? You make a ruling apparatus run by rejects like you seem extremely unappealing, moreso than my apparently flawless arguments.

so i'm guessing you're a self-loathing white or a self-loathing Jew, in any case, your problem is no reason to carve up the entire world on a whim just because you have closed your eyes and can see the Absolute Idea at the end of time

Can't make this shit up.

Oh, great, a LessWrong'er. Look, all you have to do is let go of the spooks: Culture, peoples, tradition, the singularity, etc. The memes need you, not the other way around.


I take it back, you're not a tankie, only a maotist could be this gullible.

Thank you I do feel less wrong than ideologues who's ideology is they have no ideology**

**(also a bunch of other shit).

Oh yeh you've just been pointing out the flaws in my beliefs this whole time, righteo ;)

Not a dictator, an apparatchik. The dictators and cheka will do all the repression and murder for you while you rubber stamp various forms

Haha, so I can have a personal, even visceral connection to the entire white race, but class loyalty is impossible? You fucks are something else.

In fact, Venezuela is a good example of what happens when you try to set up muh glorious Nordic system in a country on the business end of imperialism rather than a beneficiary of it.

In fact, the neoliberalism that has taken the fore now is the result of a capitalism that has gone global without any real resistance and thinks it no longer needs to keep the West happy.


I have. All you have is tired old recycled arguments from the 20th century. You just spout SocDem party dogma while trying to accuse me of doing the same for pointing out what a bad shape both social democracy and global capitalism are in and daring to think this might be due to inner logic of capitalism. You haven't even explained why that's wrong, you just called me a dogmatist as if that was your trump card.

What? I was asking? I'm trying to get to the bottom of your psychopathology, it's really the only interesting thing about anything you've said.
Why do you faggots think it's not noticeable when you simply repeat the same witty observation as if you thought of it? Are you that blind to your own neuroses? Rhetorician, you ain't. Because everyone here KNOWS these arguments, so you're not even getting away with it.

What 20th social democratic party line am i quoting from? Name any that espouse quasi-unironic Trumpism and Holla Forums as the revolutionary vanguard under national liberal post-ideological anti-psychiatric proto-communism?

You do realize the highly prosperous 1930s-1970s pre-neolib 1st world had less trade and migration, especially with the 3rd world, than now? That the period preceding it at the height of the Gilded Age, was also one of high trade and immigration?

That was just Chavez failing to go far enough, fast enough. He should've been confiscating land and factories to hand over to the workers like crazy, and pumping every penny of oil money into a huge development push as long as it lasted.

No but he's accurately discerned the wheels of motion of capitalism here according to a couple Jacobin articles he skimmed and some reddit posts from ex-D&D goons he feels he got the gist of. We just don't understand the LOGIC of capitalism. Why don't you break down Capital vol 3 for us Spurdo, seeing as youve read and understood it?

Reminder that Stirner posters are implying "family is a spook" aka "fuck you mom! fuck you dad! you're MY PROPERTY ;_;" It's even more autistic than ancap remarkably

Just because something is a spook, doesn't mean you necessarily have to get rid of it.

Egoism isn't just about rejecting spooks, but about mastering them.

Lmao, except nationalism cos it's always Hitler. Literally. Every. Time.

Ever heard about national Egoism?

...

Egoism is meme tier to me now, I just can't take it seriously. It's like if Holla Forumss red pills were just saying "Red pill!!!" at everything, so it's somehow even dumber than Holla Forums

The goal of all philosophy is to remove unmotivated presuppositions imho

You can get rid of religion with state. For example look at East Germany or current day China.

That comment section is giving me cancer.

If people stick with parents who are abusive assholes because "gotta keep the family united", yes they are spooked.
But fortunately in a lot of situtation members of a family care for each others and are happy to make each other happy, hence having a family is not necessary at odd with egoism.
The spook reveal itself as such when there is a conflict between someone's interest and the idea's interest.

Ayn rand didn't go deep enoigh!

You have to go back

Lmao You sound fucking triggered kiddo, fuck your family, your race and your nation, i shit on them

The fuck is wrong with this thread why can't I post

Crustfags btfo

Sociopath

smh

Or former USSR, Yugoslavia?
China where Christianity is exploding despite continued suppression?
East Germany I'll grant you that, all it took was a nightmare snitch state that practiced Zerteszung on its own citizens.

You see, you might think you have the last laugh because you escaped a shitty family life to live in a squat with a bunch of punks as if your meme ideology wasn't just ancap 2.0, but a lot of people actually like family and think it's a good social institution. You come across as a petulant, bitter baby with nothing to actually contribute to discussion, or society for that matter. Maybe Lenin was right about socialparasites?

That doesn't change the fact that the wages go up for the people who move. My example was somewhat crude, but that's perhaps the easiest way of understanding it. That being said, if you have restrictions on immigration and no protectionist policies on capital then everyone is left worse off because the capitalists can hire exclusively where wages are low, there are no minimum wage laws, and workers' rights are bad.

Neoliberalism is already precisely such a race to the bottom though, labor will never have the freedom of movement of capital, no matter how much Stirnercucks fantasize about being lone wolves with zero attachments, capital is literally light speed.

That guy is literally the embodiment of every self proclaimed "socialist" on my campus who isn't me

Check out David Harvey on neolib, then this thread again, and see if you'd rather side with the infantile, possibly psychopathic control freaks ITT whos ideology reliably seems to stem entirely from childhood trauma and other emotional issues, and who look down on you, hate religion and will gleefully repress you into non-existence with an iron fist, acting as if DDR wasn't a full dystopia and family is for fags, or whether you'd rather side with the """nazi""" agnostic who respects your faith, actually likes diversity, and doesn't see you as delusional and in need of coerced "correcting" for it.

nb4 banned for outright nat-soc recruitment

But honestly you retards make yourselves look bad. All I have to do is get you to talk.

And, yes, you can get rid of the religious conflict between them by convincing them that their beliefs are false. It might be easier in the short term to get them to just accept secular values, though.

Witty observation? I don't know what you're talking about.

If you're already so versed in all the arguments, try actually arguing against it. Because, so far, all you've said was that what I was saying was dogma without even attempting to point out why this supposed dogma was wrong.

"Look at how great social democracy has made Europe" (ignoring that social democracy has failed in Europe, you're pretending the 20th century never ended)

"Socialist/communist politics always necessarily lead to dictatorship" (even outright ignoring the examples posted here that weren't dictatorships)
These are two debunked talking points that you just keep repeating in this thread.

And your only real defense is of nationalism is "muh people" and implying that anyone that doesn't buy into it is some sort of zombie robot. You don't even bother to say why your particular grouping of people is better than any other.

Oh, you mean when the "1st world" had half the fucking world as literal fucking colonies?

I'm aware. His problem was that all he ever attempted to do was basic welfare state reformism

If a concept serves you it isn't a spook

This dude is in the running for most punchable face of all time.

Nationalism is one of those concepts that are condemned to spookdom because they never really serve the individual

Fucking kek

ALSO, BIG SHOUT OUT TO HOTWHEELS FOR BREAKING HIS SITE SO BADLY I CAN ONLY POST IN SMALL CHUNKS WITHOUT THE REPLY FUNCTION SHITTING ITSELF

He was keeping his message more constrained and on-point. What Fox News wanted him to say was some shit like "SEIZE THE FACTORIES DEATH TO THE BOURGEOISIE"

Holy shit

Good luck, here's your starter vape kit.
I did? You fired off some unsubstantiated claims from the ComIntern playbook about Social Democracy failing, the welfare state vanishing, the fascists always collaborating, explicit neoliberal policy and Marxian duplicity having nothing to do with it. I tried to inject some nuance, laughing at your inability to have any, another poster replied more earnestly, and you just snaked around onto the next line. It's too boring to really take that seriously, sorry.
All you really ever do is try the tarnish by association tactic. I'm frequently amazed by people who can have such a juvenile perspective, yet assume the automatic highground for themselves categorically to the extent they should be listened to as the architects of the future. It's really a testament to the failure of the notion that if we just get the correct ideology out there, then everything will work itself out. Unfortunately for you, personality intervenes.
Wait. Which?
You're free to despise everything in your hissyfit of a hollow, maladjusted existence, and not buy into it all you want. The point is you want to crush it, extinguish it from the earth, and view it as totally illegitimate for anyone to hold, as well. To the point you think killing them is an option. This is rather arbitrary, is my only point, which eludes you, as an ideologue, you simply MUST vehemently oppose what you're told to vehemently oppose. You aren't capable of a discussion. Thus you're a danger to society, not its' potential savior.

Wrong. You can only see things in black and white. It's called splitting. Creating a distinction, even assessing incompatibility, is not a normative judgment. Are you confusing is-ought? I ponder your emotional aptitude, not as character assassination, but as relevant to whether people like you can be heuristically ignored for the rest of time. Life's short and there are a billion drones, we must expend our energies where valuable, you understand comrade?
Colonialism was defeated by nationalism, genius. Soviet centre plundering the eastern bloc, trading outside of ComEcon with the imperialists / bankers, China now with North Korean labor, active measures, crushing uprisings, funding proxy wars then creating client states. None of this is imperial to you? Oh I see becaause Lenin said imperialism is capitalism, so it can't be. Case closed. kek
There is a world beyond the confines of your own asshole, my hapless foil.

What nation and/or people are you that you hate again, you never answered this?

I'm done with you, you're thoroughly pointless to talk to, thanks for being a lolcow but it's just gotten sad now.

...

Checked.

idk if he's a socialist, honestly, he probably isn't but he seems to at least understand what socialism is. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was a socialist in his youth and got turned off by all the social justice bs so he ended up becoming a conservative.

Hotwheels is most likely dead, comrade.

Mestizo here
National are spooks

>I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was a socialist in his youth and got turned off bought off by all the social justice bs Rupert Murdoch so he ended up becoming a conservative.

Wages only go up for immigrants. They go down for workers they compete with, down in the rest of the economy as well because of knock-on effects, and long-term wages for the immigrants and their children also go down because of the whole economy collapsing. Also, in their home country, aside from the slight effects of decreased labor pressure, wages are unaffected (reparations probably balance out, on the one hand supplementing income for those receiving it and feeding the rest of the economy to strengthen labor, on the other hand diluting the value of wages for other workers and local employers), and all the most agitated people are the likeliest to emigrate in the first place, further strengthening capital.


Europe still has the highest living standards on earth, and the most favorable political conditions under which to agitate for more. Social democracy hasn't failed, but it has been weakened, and we need to get it back on track.


And when dependence on those colonies as a fraction of the economy was at a lower level than at any time before or after? We had less trade, less migration, and greater economic prosperity. Face it, turd worldism is bunk.


Are you saying that consciously embracing extremely spooky subjects like family, culture, homeland, and mysticism, magically transubstitutes them from social constructs into concrete facts of life? That something spooky for one person, isn't spooky for another?


You realize that until the last few centuries, Christendom was a barbarous wasteland of backward, fundamentalist, bloodthirsty warlords and superstitious peasants? And that Islam was the region's force of enlightenment, stability, secularism, and prosperity? That for all of history before then, Western Europe was a snowy wasteland of barbarians whose primary contribution to history was the intermittent sacking and plunder of the seats of civilization?

It will surely take time, but simple economic development and demilitarization would eventually fix the Mideast


No, what Fox wanted him to say is "Mass economic immigration is always bad for the poor and good for the rich", not that hard, we'll deprogram the shitlibs eventually with Trump's help.

It's been done before, in the 70s the radical left was really strong in the middle east, it took United States intervention to prop Islamism back up.

The truth hurts, doesn't it?

I did like how you tried to blame the failure of social democracy on "Marxist academics" instead of capitalism's natural process of capitalism.

I've yet to encounter an earnest post.

There's no need for association. The failure of social democracy speaks for itself.

Posting again for your viewing pleasure. Tito notwithstanding.

kek. You're fucking pathetic.

You can't crush or extinguish something that doesn't exist.

You haven't posted any arguments in favor of your bullshit other than "muh feels" and "you're a zombie robot if you don't agree"

I do enjoy the unending barrage of personal attacks while you simultaneously try to accuse me of sophistry. The open hypocrisy of you moralists is amusing.

It's called Marxism.

"Class Reductionism" is a real thing that I've seen, but every time I've seen someone call someone else a class reductionist it was this bullshit. There are actual people who think that literally every problem ever is due to class, but it's hard to oppose them when anybody who emphasizes class gets labeled a class reductionist. Seems COINTELPRO as all hell to be honest.

Which is going away rapidly.

If you paid even the remotest attention to global economics instead of eating the SocDem bullshit, you'd know this isn't possible. Capitalism has transcended the sort of barriers you'd like to put up.

This isn't first worldism, this is a view of reality as it is. Capitalism has simply shifted its worst abuses around geographically. Nice unsourced graphs, though. Not only that, they're only for the United States.

No, I'm saying that not all immaterial concepts are bad.

You don't understand the M.O. of Fox News. They bring "lefties" on for the intentional purpose of getting them to say something extreme that will then scare their audience. The Fox News anchor there wasn't disappointed that the socialist there wasn't genuinely revolutionary, he wanted him to say some shit like "kill all cops" and the guy was staying very strictly on topic.

"I totally do have arguments, here look at my Holla Forums tier MS Paint drawing."

Capital Volume 4 coming along nicely

Who are your people, Spurdo, and why do you despise them?

The point of the image is that most of those weren't dictatorships.

They're not "my people". That's why I used the quotation marks. My people are the international proletariat.

But the only notable thing American southerners have ever done is fight a war in defense of slavery and lose said war on top of that. Then they attempted to create a racialist regime that was a hellhole even for poor whites. After that fell through, they all decided to be useful idiots for corporations up to the current day.

There's absolutely nothing admirable about them. This is why is somewhat easy for me to reject nationalism.

kek

I live in the fucking South, you idiot. I have my whole life.

They're shit. The only progress we've seen has literally been due to migration in from other areas.

Almost all political (whether they say so or not) shows do that shit. It's not just Fox.

At least Tucker doesn't edit the interviews like those slimy cunts on the Daily Show/Colbert Report do though

I wasn't defending other shows. I was saying that people who think Tucker was disappointed about anything other than the fact that the socialist wasn't making a caricature of himself are delusional.

You're a mess.

Before you try lecture anyone on Marx again, remember the thread I tore you a new asshole on Marxist theory and all you could do was call me a post-left reactionary? hahahaha

I do. I know it was you as well. I can tell.

Good times.

Oh, you're the post-left faggot?

Excuse me for having taken you seriously. I can see you have a few arguments now as you had then. You didn't tear anyone a new asshole except maybe yourself. No one was fooled by your smug self-satisfaction, especially considering that, like all post-left faggots, you have no real solutions of your own.

But, to your point.

Yes, economics being the base of social structure isn't idpol. You don't even know what you're talking about.

I never even suggested that what I don't like about Southerners is that they're a "white male society". I very specifically stated that they're a bunch of reactionaries, even to the point of throwing themselves under the bus multiple times.

And, yes, progress is good. A fact you haven't contradicted. You might get more play from just baselessly asserting that progress is bad over on >>>Holla Forums

Is this the part where we got told we don't have all the solutions and need to move beyond the left or some shit?

>>1156887 >>1156894 >>1156898
econdataus.com/tradeall.html
census.gov/library/visualizations/2014/demo/the-second-great-wave-of-immigration-growth-of-the-foreign-born-population-since-1970.html
solarlove.org/shell-bullish-on-solar-despite-dropping-solar-but-much-more-in-its-new-scenarios-than-that/

You're ignoring the point.

Oh, your post is in the screenshot

You fucks are some next level delusional.

geez those are some big words, boss. Puttin that ol' thesaurus through its paces are we?

Yes that was my point. They go up for immigrants. They go down for original residents. There is an averaging out. Are you slow or something?
As wages decrease, the capitalist can employ more workers, operations increase. The economy goes into a boom. You have failed to show how immigration causes crises.
To the extent that supply of labor is decreased, price of labor increases. B A S I C E C O N O M I C S. You have to 1. show your sources and 2. explain why this isn't so.

I said neolibs, not Marxists. Any competent Marxist would appreciate that our situation today is virtually identical to the Gilded Age: Transnational business, regulatory capture, downward spiral of offshoring/migration/privatization. And it demands the same solutions as worked last time.


The economy has only grown for the capitalists. For labor, our slice of the economy on an individual level has shrunk.

True, but keep in mind the fraction of the population that can emigrate is small, thus their effect on the labor market is proportionally small as well.

The impact on the 1st-world labor market is more severe, both because of our generally smaller population/fertility, and because the mere presence of a cheaper labor pool as an option for employers drops the floor out of the market.

I didn't realize, at first, that this was directed towards me.

I've already said this a hundred times. Nations only exist in contrast to what is outside of them. National conflict is implicit within the logic of nationalism.

[citation needed]

And I haven't defended the Warsaw Pact or Dengist China, I don't know why you're acting like I am.

Yes, there is a whole world out there. I don't understand how the existence of the world justifies nationalism as a concept.

You revealing yourself as the post-left faggot really does clear up a lot though. The good majority of your "arguments" are just presenting your beliefs as worldly salt-of-the-earth wisdom and accusing anyone who disagrees with you as some out-of-touch ivory your academic.

can anybody gulag these classcucks please

I dunno, the other guy has a bit of a point here. Nationalist movements pretty obviously eliminated colonialism and empire even of the Bolshevik variety as a formal legal entity. I admit even under this premise, however, one might debate as to whether its persistence in unofficial form (transnational business, sovereign debt, military racketeering, etc) is as or more pernicious.

Today is almost nothing like the "guilded age". What few similarities there are you're simply emphasizing, probably to try and make your idea of nationalist reformism more plausible.

New solutions are required for new conditions. Even if it was the case that this was some sort of repeat of the "guilded age", we already know what the endgame of SocDem reformism is

but colonialism is nothing but a variant of nationalism

Nationalists want national self-determination for all nations. Basically, each nation has it's own nation-state. Colonialism is based on imperial sovereignty, not national sovereignty. Nationalism can form out of colonial populations, but this happens after the colonial populations have lived in the land long enough to turn native. See America for an example.

fuck yo spooks nigga, your posts make no sense, if nation-states exist because of colonialism is because nation-states are the logical conclusion of colonialism

nations had to expand to amass the territorioes they now control

The solutions I'm pushing for (tariffs, migration quotas, regulation) aren't necessarily nationalist. What I want is to enforce rule of law against sidestepping and arbitrage across borders.

Harmonizing laws in tranches between economically comparable nations, gradually developing the entire world up to the same minimum standards, until nations and borders aren't necessary? That would be the right way.

Opening up borders to unrestrained capitalist exploitation, incinerating 1st-world labor, and dumping the entire world into the hands of robber barons straight out of the 1800s? Wrong idea.


Colonialism is a pre-nationalist concept from the age of feudal empires, where some nations are subservient clients of other nations. Nationalism, like liberalism, and even capitalism, was once a left-wing idea. Things have of course changed, now that the "old" right-wing (monarchies, theocracies) have become largely irrelevant.

Are you joking

heh

there were more radical groups than the liberal nationalists

No, the colonial empires of the age of exploration were virtually unchanged in structure from ancient feudal empires of the classical world.

The latter period was one of transition, with absolute noble rule giving way to republicanism and democracy in emperial seats, but nationalist sentiments within colonial subjects couldn't fully take hold until they (at least nominally) severed ties with their masters.

I didn't say they were STILL left-wing

Europe had colonies last fucking century. And the 19th. Imperialism and Colonialism were corporate at that point, and even a century before then. East India Company fucking had a monopoly on everything.

Do you know any kind of history whatsoever

they were not "left" wing, it doesn't matter if they sit on the left side of the parlament

radical left wing groups fought in the french revolution and in several other 18th century and 19th century revolts, however the dominating form were the liberals

And Europe was still in the process of dismantling its monarchies as late as WWI. Even interests like the East India Company and privateers had somewhat limited autonomy, as they were still beholden to the crown, rather than being completely transnational like the great industrialists.


True enough, Makho was on the field in Russia, but it was still Stalin that won the war.

...

I think it's just that "leftists" have taken on so many rightist policies, so uncritically, it disgusts rightists.