I've lurked this board for quite a while and I notice something weird

I've lurked this board for quite a while and I notice something weird

How does this make sense? Its god damn hypocritical

Other urls found in this thread:


oh look its another ""communist"" vs anarchist thread

What is wrong with you?

so you accept the second statements then?

It's almost like this board isn't a hivemind that has one uniform opinion. Your first two examples confuse statements of fact with opinion, which is telling as to how deep your ideology goes.

Capitalism is destroying the human relations between family members. The nuclear family, however, is not the same thing as family overall. We should not protect it if we find something better, and we should not allow parents, for example, to mistreat their children by poisoning their mind by teaching them pseudoscience or shit like that.

Capitalism brings low-wage workers in order to whip the native workers into submission. Nationalism is bad because it sacrifices the individual for a non-existent collective nation. It makes it so the poor man is tricked into fighting the rich man's war, and so that workers don't see each other as having more in common than them and a rich man from their own countries. We are for internationalism, not globalism, which is just the global movement of capital.

Capitalism is going to break down eventually. Whether we survive or not is up to us. The rich will try to kill off the working class they no longer need.

You should join us too.

Only perhaps 1 of them with limits.

Also you should really get the difference between political ideals and realpolitic since most of people here are idealists.

None of these are contradictory.

Capitalism already destroyed the extended family in the West. The nuclear family is not inherently valuable or eternal.

Immigration has nothing to do with nationalism being bad. Both are capitalist functions. Countries do exist in the geopolitical sense. But why should they?

We don't oppose capitalism based on morality though.

OP you're fucking stupid

What you've noticed are two distinct groups present within Holla Forums, OP.

Capitalism is destroying the nuclear family, but it isn't valuable in itself. We will see the return of villages and extended familes under socialism, as opposed to parents and children confined into a house.

Capitalism is bringing immigrants in for cheap labor, which is bad for workers. Nationalism is bad because it obfuscates class and keeps the bourgs in power(if bourgs that look more like you). States are legal fiction, there is no natural barrier that determines where one is and they break apart and reform all the time.

You're not likely to see this here. Capitalism isn't morally bad, it's materially bad for anyone who isn't a bourg or wealthy. Socialism is in our self-interest.

Because the Anarchists came from reddit and shit up the place, getting triggered at anything supporting traditional moral values.

Thanks for the responses, i'm reading them

Marxists and statists are a bunch of moralists raggamuffins

They have stopped revolutionary progress since the first international

Come on guys can we please not. I think we may be able to convince a bro if you keep your sectarian bullshit to its containment threads

You're a fool, you believe you transcend morals by subjecting yourself to egoism, which is a morality itself.

We aren't all a hivemind. I believe the family unit is valuable. Also, you can reject nationalism while still explaining why immigrants are coming in. I believe immigration is bad because it undercuts wages, not because it harms "the nation". The point isn't that socialism will "stop immigration", but that there would be less of an incentive to immigrate.

Makes sense

What does this have to do with what I said?

I mean look at this way, Nazi-user: if you really, truly give a fuck about races and brown people coming into the First World and you just can't give this up, there still wouldn't really be any reason to be against Marxist Socialism because despite right-wing misconceptions of Socialism, we believe that all humans should be able to have higher standards of living; keep in mind that a lot of these immigrants are people that are more or less fleeing from the shit conditions of their home country, so if their material conditions were on par with the first world, then there would scarcely be any reason for people to be economic migrants, rather, the people that would actually immigrate to other countries would be people that are fascinated/appreciate other cultures

With the fact that you are claiming i am a moralist simply because I dont belive in boirgeoise moral idealis?

Is Nietzsche bourgeoise moral ideas?

No, because capitalism let the populace break their chain, which is why bourgeoise impose their slave morality on all of us

Holla Forums has different users that hold different ideas on different things

Stop derailing the lesson

Except Marxism tends to seek to replace all "legacy" culture seeing it as spooky and backwards. It fails of course but they still try. It's anathema to human diversity and thus self-determination. This is the problem I have with it.

This is why we need anarchism

You do realize Nietzsche wasn't advocating a return to "master morality", he was simply trying to explain why morality that virtues "otherworldliness" came into existence. He would consider someone who is the "egoist", and makes all decisions based on his self interest to be more or less following the same principle as "slave morality". Morality for Nietzsche was supposed to be a deep and personal exploration - that means if someone came to the conclusion that they think lying is wrong because they don't feel that the way they want to live, or the world they want to live in would be ideal if people lied, they would be following neither master nor slave morality. - they would be on the way to becoming "the ubermench". Nietzsche didn't think the "lol always follow own self interest" that Egoist and ancaps was the best way to live life. But that is something you, who I see shitposting egoist memes all the time would just go "lol spooks" to like the good little moron you are.

No, it doesn't. Internationalism is showing solidarity with other workers and working together towards a common goal. Nice meme, if you mean Gramsci, he was specifically talking about weakening Capitalist culture (i.e. bourgeois liberalism) not destroying Western Civilization.

that Egoist push*

Are you really denying that the major Marxist states tried to overwrite all prior culture, also justifying social-imperialism on the grounds of rescuing backwards peoples from themselves like in the case of Tibet? What?

Even the ultimately unsuccessful suppression of nationalism in Yugoslavia had tragic results.

Nietzche makes the point that all the causes considered good, popular, and beneficial had to abide to a certain moral dogma, this one being slave morality, the bourgeoise claim that capitqlism has done good for the human cause, it is slalve morality qt its peak, cappies belive some sacrifice is good in order to achieve a greater good for society

I dont need to claim I am in favour of a return to "master morality" as something society must follow, i reject the notion of morlmdogma imposed by the bourgeoise to justify capitalism

Look at this fag, he literally cares whqt the populace feels about their retarded nationalists ideas
Peak moralism

I'm not disagreeing there. But if I'm not mistaken, I've seen you get into heavy moralizing too except egoist moralizing, which I reject as well.

I didn't deny that, but Marxism isn't just one ideology. ML is mostly cancer.

Also, I would say that bourgeois morality is more master morality than slave morality. They don't prize some otherworldly benefit from stoicism, it's more along the lines of what the masters did "we are superior and therefore good, the poor are inferior and therefore bad".

Yes, they did try: the problem is that they did what they thought they had to do in order to stabilize the situation. They operated on contingency plans: their revolutionary praxis had no theoretical foundations.

Read this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressive_desublimation

It's how neoliberal capitalism defuses all revolutionary perspectives against it by colonizing the minds of those who would systematically critique it by disrupting their psychology through forced enjoyment.

What, i dont act according to my self inteest because of morals, the lack of morals meqns people follow their deepest desires

Right, every cappie belives their system will lift people from poverty, that you just hqve to pull up your bootstraps and that the bad things were caused by goverment intervention

Even the nationalists and reactionary ones, their tribe is just smaller

Yeah but it's a general tendency on the left I dislike (see the 15 year old autistic troll you're engaging with). What you're proposing is essentially self-determined peoples living together according to culture and practice (nation) perhaps with some old hierarchies removed including of course the bougeoisie, but under Marxian economic principles, then, is it not? In that case I don't see what the fundamental tension is? Just because something is coopted by the elites doesn't mean it's essentially negative under every possible system. Because everything is coopted by the elites / capitalism.

Christ flags are the best posters, thx fam

Nationalism is bad because it sacrifices the individual for a non-existent collective nation.
It's like your subconscious is trying to tell you to quit being retarded, but you ignore it.

Egoism is moralizing, especially if you proselytize about it. Maybe not "moralizing", but is certainly anitethical to what Nietzsche advocates. You're aloud to believe in spooks if they're what you truly believe in (he differs from Stirner in this way - you can let a concept govern you but only if you come to that conclusion yourself). Stirner is "it is logical to only follow what I perceive to benefit me", Nietzsche is "you can believe a spook and don't need to rationalize you, as long as you come to the conclusion that this spook is how you want to live your life yourself". Of course, when I say "spook" I mean "don't lie" or "markets are bad because inequality is bad", not "do this for God" and "do this for the nation".

I know Nietzsche spoke against socialist, but he had a memetier understanding of it. He most likely never read the famous socialist thinkers in detail (like Bakunin, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Marx - I know for a fact he never read Marx), he probably read the "utopian socialist". They talked about the sea turning into lemonade and were very heavy on moralizing so.

I've heard many cappies advocate that poor people are poor because they're lazy or stupid. In fact, I find this view more common than the Adam Smith one.

I don't think anything co-opted by the elites is bad. I love bourgeois classical music. Roger Scruton is a British Philosopher who made some arguments for conservatism, and while I generally disagree with most of what he says (he accuses socialist of requiring an enemy to function while more or less ignoring that the conservative values of Capitalism he prizes were more or less born the same way), but I don't think you really need a rational reason to find value in a certain degree of cultural autonomy. I think a lot of the enjoyment we derive from culture is emotional and the pursuit of the emotional is completely irrational but invaluable. I'm not a racist though, and I refuse to think of culture in terms of race or nation. That doesn't mean I think all constructs are automatically "good or bad".


Also that's not to say he would've liked Marx because he hated German idealism but Nietzsche wasn't familiar with how technical arguments for socialism can get.

But why is that bad? The only real alternatives to struggle as a group in pursuit of some goal are 1) living apart from society or 2) spending all of your time sleeping, watching TV, and pouring food down your throat.

The hard distinction between irrational emotion (implied bad) and rational contemplation is totally false I think.

I'm not a racist either, to me nation simply means a compatible culture and some shared values enough to be coherent. This includes existing harmonious multicultural nations. But forced multiculturalism, pursued at too fast a rate, combined with "humanitarian" interventionist wars, systemic global inequality, and the resultant crises, actually creates racism, and attempting to just repress it away as the liberals wish is not going to work. I see many liberals as true crypto-racists.

There is no distinction where it goes from "bad to good". I like to write essay's as an epistemological exercise, and I'm writing one called "Art as Catharsis", so I've been thinking about this at great length.

I agree, your cultural critique of liberals is a lot like Zizek's. I generally agree with him.

Read Heidegger, it's all about care and comportment. All of our thoughts are not just colored by, but 'oriented' by emotion. I see the problem with much of leftism is in its attempts to conceive of and remake society purely rationally, which ironically I find entirely irrational.

Which leftist philosophers do you mean? The "destroy all culture" thing is a pretty recent occurrence on the left, even Adorno had a hard on for classical culture. Marx was a bit of an anti-semite (as as Proudhon and Bakunin). The only one I can think of who matches what you're describing is Stirner, but even then it's not so much "destroy all culture" as "the culture of authority should be opposed when it's used to justify authority", and I'm not sure if Stirner is a leftist either. And do you have any Heidegger ebooks?

Sorry fam not on this comp, you should be able to find Being and Time pretty easily, I'd look into the different translations and some lectures on it before you dive into it (been years so no recc's off the top of my head sorry), it is very dense and it's notoriously difficult to recover from the German, but one of the most valuable texts you'll ever get your head around imho. btfo basically everyone.

I've heard Heidegger is very good, but if I were being completely honest I don't think I'm going to read him for some time. I'm in school and working a wage slave job and rarely get enough time to read theory or write my own philosophy as it is.

The answer is simple not everyone here has the same opinion. Sure this is a leftist board but it is foolish to assume that all leftist think the same.

worshiping it is a spook (loving your parents when they abuse you for example), but nobody here said family isn't valuable, maybe they critique it as being an institution around property relations


the nuclear family is a byproduct of capitalism and it must perish in order for social relations between the genders to equalize.

Mother Nature has a way of killing off members of her animal kingdom unable to procure for themselves the elements necessary for survival – food, water, shelter, air, clothing. Predators eliminate weakened members. Disease takes its toll.
Communities and people band together and provide for those unable to provide for themselves.

There's an important distinction to be made between these things "in themselves" i.e. the pure ideal, and these things as they manifest under capitalism. No tradition, social/cultural norm, or idea truly develops "in a vacuum" but is invariably molested by the material pressures of life. Our goal, if we are to truly value "the family" as a set of worthwhile emotional relationships and support, "the nation" as an extended family, and "morality" as supports to these things, should be to remove the corrupting influences on their expression, insofar as possible.

Morality "has a class character" for instance, because the ruling class finds certain behaviors, temperaments, and values more conducive to its own self-interest (as well as self-image - "job creators" etc.) and their relative power in society makes these propagate further and better. So too do certain sections of the other classes, based on their own station in life, come to gravitate around certain values within themselves. A culture in a mountainous region by the sea with little arable land will likely develop more of a seafood-oriented cuisine, Latino immigrants can be more family-oriented when they are economic migrants in a foreign culture who might not speak English, and so on. What is the "most useful" morality varies across situations, and if we are to reach the "best" one in the sense independent of petty context and usefulness, we should seek to liberate ourselves from the conditions that -demand- one approach to the world in various crass ways.

Censorship of the arts is one of the clearer examples. The SJWs would not have made such major inroads in the vidya industry if 1) we didn't have a culture of people holding onto this neoliberal, globalist ideology which leverages "representation" to divide the working class against its own interests and 2) vidya wasn't an abusable, profit-driven industry compelled to seek out sales and good PR, often dishonestly and abusively, rather than honest quality.

Sure. But I don't think they should have, or should have to. The idea is that culture will necessarily change (and necessarily for the better) once you've removed material influences that stifle it. Rather than accomplish this, many regimes have tried to simply "fake" the end result with abusive, top-down social engineering, in order to trumpet their "progress." This is severely wrongheaded, and akin to someone who changes his political beliefs on a whim chasing the veneer of becoming "ever more informed and well-considered" in his views. I'd go so far as to say that your picture of Mao's Cultural Revolution (deliberate confusion, disorientation, and brainwashing, to serve a political goal) is correct.
I don't believe you can really improve the meat of society by "engineering" its culture. All you have then is the same culture, merely subject to yet another artificial, corrupting influence. It must be organic, and not designed.

I don't get this place either. Someone apparently from this board on 4chan told me to come here to find the answer but I've seen the exact thing as you, OP. Actually, even worse and more confusing is how they worship Max Stirner here, a guy who wrote this

All this Stirner worship here makes even less sense after actually reading Stirner. Why on earth does this Holla Forums place would support him? He was an egoist who was anticollectivist, cared only for himself and his own property and said nor anyone else owed anyone else a damn thing and they should only care about themselves, their private poverty and how one should embrace selfishness with a complete disregard for other human beings like a psychopath. Everything about him and his writings more closely resembles that of libertarians digging a moat with landmines around their house than anything a leftist board supposedly supports or preaches.

They also unironically believe Max Stirner had black hair most likely because of that idiotic caricture, I mean I literally got into an argument about this with someone from Holla Forums thinking they were joking but they were completely serious, instead of the blonde hair blue-eyed Aryan guy Stirner really was.

It's like this board is full of idiots or children or something. They've only made me and most likely others more distant from leftism than I've ever been instead of the opposite and this is after engaging even more absurd idiots, although less contradictory, on Reddit like /r/socialism and similar places. At this point, somehow, I want to believe this entire board is satire. As for leftism as a whole, all the doublethink makes me want to run to Adolf Hitler's arms whose economic policies were more leftist than what is being preached on this board.

The people here need to sort themselves out before inviting others, unless their intention is to get people to be dissuaded from leftism, in which case if it is they're doing a wonderful job of it. I'll stay open minded for now and return when things here aren't so idiotic. For now, I'd say being Right might be literally right but I'll keep reading and seeing where conclusions lead.

You are a retard for beliving anyone should take every single word spoken by a human as a rolemodel for life

I mean, Stirner is a meme. You have to remember that.
He's not the patron saint of leftism. You can read a detailed and extensive critique of his work in The German Ideology.
And he doesn't mean "spiritual" as a virtue. It means something akin to "absorbed in the mind, in ideas," (see translation notes) which he linked to denial of the "whole self" in favor of an idealized and imaginary self-concept.
I honestly found him banal in the extreme. You could condense ten pages or so into one with no loss in meaning and he said very little about why you should care - what the actual nontrivial implications of his truisms are, if there indeed are any.

Proselytizing egoism is a thing in so far as you gather a group and talk to them, Nietzche specifically talks about this in Zaratustra

You cannot moralize egoism, you might try to point out how it functions to a mob but only a few would understand, the point is that those egoists are also aware of how the spooks shape the man

By talking and forming an union you are simply joining forces to will your individual will, the egoists realize this

We do not want everyone to follow this line of thought, its impossible, people are simply too scared of letting go of the spooks, of the desert of post-ideology

Beings are merely a tool for my enjoyment, and this enjoyment exists not because of it, but because i decide to enjoy and entertain myself before the inevitability of disappearance



I've read him several times

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money." - Karl Marx.

You're truly a retard if you think someone being anti-Semitic invalidates their philosophy. Many leftist were anti-semites, Bakunin to Proudhon. Being a product of the time does not mean their ideas contain no insight to be gained.

That being said, Stirner was not a "leftist", but he did support the workers "emancipating themselves" so to speak - if you did read Stirner, you would know he talks about the labourers taking the product of labour as their own and having "the greatest power in their hand", as well as private property being a fiction of the law. He is mostly an influence on the post-left, of which there are very few post-lefters on this board but we like to meme him. That being said, not everyone likes to meme him - including me, I find it annoying.

That being said:

Is exemplary of how moronic and political illiterate you are. Hitler's policies were very much capitalist ones. Not only did he make it illegal for workers to strike, but he privatized industry including the banks with one major exception. pseudoerasmus.com/2015/05/06/fascists-part-2/

It makes me wonder what you consider "leftist" - I'm assuming by leftist you mean anti-Capitalist, but seeing as you are an apparent imbecile, it could mean any number of strawmen you've concocted in your head so that you can wallow in your ego's filth.

Why would you start with Stirner as a leftist text? Why not Proudhon? Kropotkin? Bakunin? Marx? Kalecki? Literally anyone else but Stirner.

Read turdpositionists like Sorel and Benoists and it ALL becomes clear kamerade.

Zizek reads like the Unabomber manifesto. He's not a bad guy.

He certainly "dared" to entrust his lifelong collaborator and close personal friend with the execution of his literary estate, so you're really just talking out your ass here, Saint Anarcho-Hyphenist.
They set about writing The German Ideology more for themselves, as sort of a project of assessing and proving to themselves how their ideas agreed with one another's with respect to their historical context. It wasn't an issue of timely polemic, like, say, Lenin's Materialism and Empirio-criticism.

Wow, it's almost as if the posters here have different opinions.

I have most of them.

His concept of spooks is good lens to view the world. Not be all and end all though

Also based on what you said, seems like you didn't read Striner


Let me break it down for you from my perspective

It is

I'm guessing Stirnerist don't find it inherently valuable, but I'm sure there are some who would find reason to keep it. Marxist probably believe that their is something that lies beyond the traditional family unit that we have yet to discover because the material conditions are not yet ripe for it to appear. Marx called this the "holy family". This doesn't mean they hate family, but that they believe it's still in development.

this is just conflating nationalism with anti-imperialism. Nationalism for the sake of nationalism only serves capitalism.

The only people who talk about morals here are usually socdems, from what I've seen. Not all of us agree on what constitutes morality. It's one of the main arguments we have among each other.

Maybe so. But not one of you will admit to the positive aspects of a racially homogeneous society or nationalism.

Sure you do. Every time you cry 'exploitation' this is ab appeal to morality.

Exploitation is literally describing what is going on - someone is using someone else for their own benefit.

Every single time.

But the exploited is paid for it. Your beef is that they aren't paid what you think they are entitled to. If entitlement is derived from work put in to a product you're talking about fairness, ie a moral issue.

Well, no. "Exploitation" has kind of a charged connotation, so it can seem this way, especially if you're not used to it having a technical meaning. But nothing in Marxism places a moral imperative on the bourgeoisie to "willingly give up" their control of the MoP, or to cast them, the individuals, as evil for not choosing to do so. It's just assumed that they, as a class, will naturally act in their own rational self-interest for the most part.
There can be no "morality" without a moral imperative to uphold or violate.

This. It's literally a parasitic relationship, and not a symbiotic one, but we would never call the dog's gut worms "immoral," merely recognize it is in the dog's best interest to have them removed, and then act accordingly.
Marxism brackets the question of morality, insofar as possible. If your worldview depends on some subjective, consciousness-dependent "interpretation" of "higher ideals" it is necessarily weaker for it

That is still exploitation. Plus how is fairness a moral issue, it is just a power struggle to put it very cynically. Not that guy btw

If I bend you over a sawhorse, rape you, and drop a five dollar bill on your quivering asshole as I leave, does that mean I've no longer taken advantage of you, or that the two of us did not have an inherently adversarial relationship with two sets of diametrically opposed interests?

Conservatives are massive hypocrites for supporting a system that is the antithesis of the values they claim to hold dear.

That's the point.

No one ever said "entitled", the entire point is this:
This is the entire these - the worker does not have control over his already shitty, soul crushing work. There's a reason Cicero said "to sell oneself to work for money is to make oneself a slave". Capitalism is glorified slavery, and I doubt you're going to tell me that slavery isn't exploitation because if the slavery didn't wanna work he'd just refuse the masters food and start himself to death.

How is it a morality issue? very simply. The weak do not take from the strong because they cannot. They instead appeal to the notion of fairness. They cannot take by force what they want so they guilt the strong into it.

Slavery is exploitation. It is more overt adn barbaric thus the moral case against it is easier made. Slavery is wrong. I doubt anyone here would deny this from a moral/ethical standpoint.

Right, which is why ultimately what needs to happen is taking "the strong", and putting them up against a wall.

And Capitalism is glorified slavery. A peasant in Tsarist Russia had 1/4-1/5th of his days set aside for Holidays/Rest. I seriously doubt you will find a 9-5 blue-collar worker who gets 1/12th of the time to spend pursuing his interest. It's not like Capitalist didn't realize how shitty Capitalism is - Adam Smith proposed the idea of a State sanctions public school because the division of labour was so tedious and lacking in stimulus, that men would become stultified in feeble if they weren't given time to exercise those faculties.

Also, I don't need to justify my moral views. There is no break between my irrational/rational justification for morality. Seeing as you seem to be parroting Nietzsche here, , I hope you aren't about to turn around and lecture me about how property is an inalienable right, made sacrosanct by some malformed deontology right? Because I've seen lolberts do exactly that. Switch between some weird perverted egosim, and then suddenly justify property rights with a perverted Kant.

The entire point of revolutionary socialism is taking by force. Nobody's asking the bourgies to make concessions. That's called "reformism" and "the welfare state." It also doesn't work because the issue isn't how much wealth someone has, but how he got it and continues to get it, and what contradictions such a method entails.

The point is that the slave and the slaveowner have directly opposed interests. The morality of the situation is irrelevant to class analysis, so you may "bracket" it and place it aside.
The theory doesn't hinge on moral assumptions, and that it its great strength

My post more for those who use exploitation as justification for doing something, then deny morality exists or that they are appealing to it. If you admit your desire to overthrow is at least in part based on morality then I've no issue from this angle.

I still think that revolutionary socialism is impractical, probably undesirable (in outcome) and potentially fraught with moral issues (collective punishment being the main one), but that's another matter.

Unironically made me think

That was the thesis of An Inquery Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. It is odd that so many people do not get that point two-hundred and forty years later.

Exploitation runs contrary to the material interests of the working class. You do not need morality to see the cascading effect that exploitation has on an individual's life. It is not just that a worker does not get his fair share. It is also that exploitation feeds a class that dominates and controls the life of that worker.

Some people may feel compelled to push for socialism by their own individual moral sense. There are several different moral frameworks that could influence someone in this direction. But Marxist theory in and of itself does not depend on any specific form of morality, or on having any at all.

"Exploitation" in this context is not a moral term. It's merely a sort of shorthand for referring to "the process of surplus labor value extraction," which is an objective phenomenon. You don't need to give it such crass labels as "good" or "bad" to understand what role it plays in society, whose objective material interests it serves, whose it does not, and how those two great camps are then influenced, to some degree, to respond to it.

My personal desires, for instance, are egoistic and consist of finding out "how the world works" in the broadest terms. Marxist theory is an excellent vehicle for that. I also feel like it is in the best interest of physical scientists to work in a post-capitalist world separate from the bourgeoisie's profit motive and resulting severe, chronic underfunding relative to the volume of qualified people entering (see the positively onanistic STEM propaganda put out by _the same people_ funding the whole Ponzi scheme?) You can chart the median principal investigator age over the last sixty years, and what you find is appalling. Nowadays you get shuttled from postdoc to postdoc to postdoc and so on. Also the predatory practices of Elsevier and the other big journal publishers stand in the way of advancement and public confidence (paywalls) in science, as well as scientific literacy, while proprietary software (looking at you, Gaussian!) is an issue all its own.

Exploitation is based on the material reality of capitalism; private property, wage labour, production for profit and so on.

its another Holla Forums is one person thread

Engels chose not to publish it either as it wasn't published until the 1930s in the USSR, long after both Marx and Engles were dead. The only part from the German Ideology that Engels chose to put in publishing were the Theses on Feuerbach, iirc.

says the Tankie, ChristCom or Maotist
says the Stirner, Anarkiddie or Anfem

says the the guy responding to the Holla Forums 'if muh rapefugees and this sad image/story that gives me emotional leverage aren't a joo conspiracy, why are they happening? lol checkm8 triggered cuck cuck cuck nice try schlongmo lol btfo' post
says the Anarkiddie or Stirner

says everybody but AynCraps and Stirners
say the Stirners

Stirnerology 101: Reality is just, like, whatever you make of it, man. Normies are fucking plebs lmao. Fuck your friggin "rules", I do whatever the HECK I want, you moralist statist biatch mom. Also vegan. You're all BTFO fags now please read these 19th century philosophy texts that prove me right, please xDDDD

you seem triggerred by the single fact that there are debates on this imageboard. we do not use chan to plot some fucking raid on a pizza parlor on circumstantial evidence.
marxsits quarrel, debate and insult each other since the publication of the communist manifesto. if you cant take it, go larp with your Holla Forums bloodbuddies. its very funny when you do that.

This. I got an icepick to the head for daring to question the Stalin Justice Warriors' narrative. Where is the Holla Forums outrage?

Communists believe that "it takes a village."

Communists are internationalist. Their biggest problem with illegal immigration is that it's bad for labor unions, which is 95% of their problems.

They don't say that capitalism is despicable, only that it will inevitably be destroyed and replaced. Since that's not happening quickly enough they try to hurry it along by sowing discontent and burning "symbols of capital."

Lol the Holla Forumsyp is still butthurt

These are today devices of class rule which play an integral role in suppressing workers' struggles
Capital is literally an international thing. One can outsource jobs and hire anywhere in the world, subject only to the local laws the bourgeoisie has by and large agreed upon. You don't stop being in direct competition with workers of other nationalities simply because they're on the other side of an imaginary line in the dirt."Illegal" immigration is also indistinguishable from the legal sort, for the enforcement of immigration laws is again a choice by the bourgeoisie, except perhaps in the case of "you can be deported at any time" weighing in as a bargaining chip against otherwise permitted immigrant workers, should they organize.
literally what

I lol'd

t. libertine too socially inept to get into de Sade or realize he is the laughing stock of this board


his post says all that?


… and the vanguards of communist "movements"

Why should "capital" be limited to one country?

Just because a policy is selectively enforced doesn't mean that it's unenforceable.
This melding of government and economics is "one of the key distinguishing features of" socialism.

The AFL-CIO is not going to lead a revolution against capital anytime in the next millennium.

It's not. Which is why it's nonsensical to speak of "illegal immigration" as a single issue in its own right and not a facet of the contradictions of international capital. If pajeets can do your job for cheaper, the porkies can either import them or export the jobs. Often one may be cheaper than the other owing to physical reality or legislation (you can't outsource lawnmowing,) or they may both be unreasonable. It's two sides of the same coin, it's the same issue. And porkies choose the legislation together, balancing personal advantage and the stability of the system.

I agree with that. I'm not by any means claiming immigration policy is unenforceable. Trump would sure as shit enforce it, and excellently, if only he was capable of keeping his promises. The point is that the government, as a device of class rule, responds to porky. If it habitually under-enforces a law, there is a reason behind it. Selective enforcement has very little to do with the law per se, but instead with the demands of the ruling class. If it can be more useful to them to allow X amount of "legal" immigration and "permit" 9X this amount by lax enforcement, rather than to allow 10X of legal immigration from the get-go (say, to diminish the rights of such "undocumented workers" or immigrants) they can do it.

Eeugh. Every capitalist government melds the two to varying degrees because capitalist government is by its very nature an economic thing. The feudal monarchy blended economics and governance because they were inseparable - the landed nobility, too, was an economic thing. Even something as simple as immigration policy or the extent of the welfare state are questions of maintaining class rule.
Socialism, by contrast, is properly understood as "workers owning the means of production" or, rather, "Workplace Democracy." Which doesn't mean so much "voting on every minor decision" so much as it means free elections of management and ultimate beneficial ownership by those who do the actual work (which includes the administrative and executive roles.)

The destruction of the family has been a goal of many marxists movements. It was particularly in fashion during the 1960's

It's a little thing called leftist infighting fam.

Explain this?

There's nothing hypocritical or contradictory about those statements at all.
The personal ISN'T political, there are Nationalists and Racialist and Traditionalists and Idpolers from the left from Bourgeois Feminism to Genderists and LGBT Lifestylists on Holla Forums, they're ostricized, but they're here.
Our brand of Leftism which is the Historically accurate one is one that starts and ends with class politics. The consequences of the Capitalist mode of production in the superstructure are only meaningful in their relationship with the latter and any value assigned to them serves only the bourgeoisie.
You can persue your spooked goals on your own time, as long you don't try to poison the movement with them, if you do you'll be faced with our homegrown brigade of Stirnerfags and materialists, that's the essence of this board.