Confused Liberal Here

Personally ambivalent to this idea, but there's a moderately popular idea of "accelerationism" among socialists that the current power systems are so entrenched that we should actively seek to undermine the system and support those who would undermine and introduce contradiction to the system as soon as possible. With a longer, more dragged out collapse being assumed to be a worse path with eventually even more disastrous results.

Hence Trump is the "better option" precisely BECAUSE he is worse.

aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/11/zizek-electing-trump-shake-system-161116062713933.html

Gandhi would have been ignored if it wasn't for the violent separatists who would have done shit.He himself was non violent but his words alone meant nothing to the British establishment.Read MLK letter from the Birmingham jail, Alabama shows us what happens when you non violently oppose porkie he comes back with force to kill

Regarding your concerns about violence, if you could take one life to save a hundred, would you? Capitalism is responsible for the death of millions, if not more, every year. While I am in no way advocating for violence hello FBI/ATF/CIA the thought process is that you would save more lives as a result.

I don't personally believe this, but there is a very commonly held belief on this board in what is called "Accelerationism", which is the general belief that Capitalism has inherent flaws that will lead to a number of crisis. Democrats and Democratic Socialists delay this by passing laws, regulations, and bailouts to try and delay these crisis. Trump, however, does the exact opposite of this, and repeals regulations, calls for less government interference, and other such things that accelerate these crisis, leading to what is believed to be the inevitable collapse.
I'm personally rather skeptical, but it's the only path I see to Communism, at the moment anyway.

I actually never believed he even held the intention of doing it until Flynn resigned.

America has been a shitshow for decades. Now all of a sudden everyone acts like the sky is falling because somebody has pulled off the thin veneer of civilisation it had. They meddle in European politics, bomb the middle east, coup Latin American nations, mess with Asia economically and militarily, kill off their own domestic upstarts, imprison millions and peddle illegal drugs to their own citizens. America has always been a tyrant and a bully and if it can collapse into violent domestic struggle it will be a weight off the world's shoulders. True that all superpowers behave like shits to stay there, but in the coming decades America needs to have its global presence toned down a huge amount if the human race is to survive the century. Trump is the key to this, an inept "isolationist" is the planet's meal ticket to salvation.

oh my sweet child

pick one. It's clear he doesn't even want to have the responsibility of being president and has no idea how the US government works

...

MLK was a full blown radical socialist, who, while not participating in violent groups, was definitely backed by them, and most likely sympathized with them. It's worth reading up on.

It has been a good while since I brushed up on radical strikes and related ideologies, but generally, look for Syndicalist writers for words on the subject. I think Rudolf Rocker's 'Anarcho Syndicalism' (very easy to find online!) explains further.

Disagreements can, will, and do happen. Keep in mind that with or without wage labour, the workplace is still a source of the livelihoods of all. People do not generally destroy their livelihoods due to petty disagreements or workplace feuds. Worker's self management does not always necessarily mean every man manages, the workers could very well elect a manager from their ranks. Read up on Mondragon for a decent understanding of cooperatives in the capitalist system.

.
trump isn't so much a fascist as he is what bush, obama and if whe were elected, clinton did and would have done but with out the pretext of democracy and popular government stripped away. most of the really horrible stuff that trump is openly bragging about is built upon previous presidents. the border wall stupidity was started under bush. the mass deportations were started under obama etc. imo one of the silver linings of trump getting elected is that the far right shit head have decided to link themselves to an incompetent baby man who while a horrible piece of shit isn't actually competent and doesn't have the beliefs or popular mandate that fascists in the vein of hitler franco or mussolini had. in addition trump isn't a fascist. as i said before he is more a conservative shithead than a fascist. trump and the majority his movement lack the fascist tendancies such as the cult of action/violence, the almost religious belief that the state is the will of the people of the nation/race and the pseudo-revolutionary overtones that characterised the regimes of many fascist movement and governments. im sorry if this is rambling but drunkposting on a saturday kicks ass.

is what bush obama and clinton if she were elected

m8, read this simple introduction to Marxism: swp.org.uk/sites/all/files/pamphlets/5_introducing-marxist-economics.pdf

I'm reading this currently, and it explains his critique of capitalism in very simple terms. And in the suggested reading section at the bottom, it has texts that help someone read Capital.

It doesn't have to be violent. A few countries went socialist democratically. Another method is via infiltration of the gov silently. Other methods involve fucking up the market economy.

MLK and Ghandi both were Socialists. MLK was a Democratic Socialist and Ghandi had his own pacifist idea of socialism

And for large scale communism yes it has to be global but state socialism or small communes it need not be.

Oh I can get that. I've thought a bit about how Trump's blatant insanity will allow much larger open resistance than we could've had under Clinton. He definitively pulls back the charismatic and personable veil the ugly system has had for so long now. But my fear is that if Trump were impeached/replaced/etc through "legitimate" means, a lot of these protesting people would be placated with another horrible corporatist. I guess that's a good argument for revolt heh.

I'll add that to my reading list then.

That's another good point for sure. I definitely think Capitalism needs to go. I guess I just struggle with accepting the ends vs means mentality. If it's absolutely necessary, which I might be convinced of, then I'd have to go with it. But the problem is I just have trouble morally convincing myself to kill, even if I know the other person would "deserve" it or that it needed to happen. But idk, it definitely seems like something huge needs to happen & that the systems in place are just not anywhere near adequate.

Different user, but here's my take:

There were definitely more radical activists than MLK in his day. I don't think he ever quite aligned himself with leftism, at least not explicitly, though he certainly expressed support and agreement. The more challenging parts of his speeches, writings, and activism have absolutely been swept under the rug. White "moderates"and the media constructed a defanged replica of MLK, idolized him, and told "rowdy" activists they need to be like him. This is obviously still happening today.

I don't know a whole lot about Gandhi or India, but what I do know suggests he's kind of a mixed bag. The peace and equality thing is good. He was against the colonization of Palestine by Jewish people, welcomed modern technology, and helped overthrow the British Empire without violence but India would be better if it had been liberated by its leftists. But Gandhi, like MLK, also didn't align himself with the left. I think MLK was closer to it than Gandhi was, actually.

Gandhi also tried to scrub temples of gay art, was racist against black South Africans (and probably other black people), and believed Jewish people shouldn't fight nazis or the nazi regime and instead let themselves be killed. That's antithetical to the left's embrace of violent revolution and self-defense.

In short, MLK and Gandhi aren't exactly leftists, and Gandhi even less so.

socialism in one country is doomed to fail.unless you have a global revolution the capitalists will conspire against you. Capitalism and it's profit motive will always outproduce socialism on pure numbers

Also want to put a disclaimer for anyone trying to accuse me of IDpol or whatever: homophobes, racists, and other bigots who divide the proletariat are not my comrades.

It's pathetic that this board is so paranoid about "subversive Idpol CIA-COINTELPRO-ZIONISM" that you have to say this.

thats, not idpol.being homophobic,racist and any other form of bigotry is idpol. A comrade doesn't care who you are so long as you take up arms with him against capitalism

Marxism isn't just economics

half of it is a meme, but the other half is tinfoil hat tier retarded conspiracy who genuinely believe any deviation from shitposting and pseudo intellectual theory jerking is CIA

one of the annoying things about Holla Forums is that the anti idpol stuff almost becomes our idpol.

but both MLK and Ghandi were socialists. Im not sure about Ghandi as much but definitely MLK. I looked into it before.

I didn't how to phrase it. Marxist theory, I guess?

He did shortly before he was killed iirc.

None of that is what is meant when idpol is critiqued you derailing shitters.

They aren't.

we still have idpol here,as much as people like to hate on it. The Nazbols are idpol as are the anti LGBT shit that gets flung around,just look in the shkreli thread in the catalog

You can emphasize class and worker solidarity, while simultaneously noting that certain workers are even more exploited, you dumbfuck shitter.

This is why it is shit on constantly, because as soon as it's given enough oxygen to survive some sperg derails every perfectly good thread into being about it.

i agree. the tendency to mask idpol trash in anti idpol annoys the fuck outta me. its impossible to be anti-idpol while screeching about shitskins and faggots ruining the white working class which is the real working class because reasons

Oh hey, thanks for those I'll have to do a lot of reading heh. Do all the people on here (haven't lurked at all - just was recommended to visit here by my friend) read this much? I'll try to commit to it tho - seems incredibly important.

And those are good points, yeah. It's just the process of actually getting all these workers everywhere on-board. It seems like a monstrous undertaking, but if possible well worth it.

Thanks for more recs!

Hmm, I dunno if infiltration of the gov system is possible. It seems like its by design meant to prop up the 1%. Bernie was someone who inspired me to look a bit more into leftist things, but his failure/huge loss to the Democrats fucking him over kinda convinced me we won't ever get someone progressive in the gov. Think about it - even a blatant maniac like Trump could get through because he ultimately supports the 1%, despite his pretensions of working class support. There's no way a true leftist can make change in this system - that I can see at least.

Ah, guess Ghandi's kind of less responsible for India's "freedom" then is often made out. Also seems kinda gross. The establishment definitely likes less threatening figures to placate the populace.

Huh - maybe you could list the Dems as more fascistic then. I've met a lot of ppl - including good friends - who have a scary amount of faith in our government systems and seem to have a cult of personality around ppl like Obama Biden and Clinton.

Also what's all this stuff about idpol? What is that?

That would be Marxian economics

You'll notice this has been happening along with increasing threads from Holla Forumsacks saying "fine I'm ok with socialism as long as there's genocide"

The Nazbols and Nazis are engineering some sort of alliance, and are trying very hard to get this board to go along with it.

Maybe don't give retarded disclaimers or try and pre-empt things you'll be called and actually stick up for yourself when called out. Nobody would have called you out for idpol for that post and it was unnecessary, look how much the thread has gone off track because of it.

Speaking as somebody who does idpol but not here. Yes, it'll always consume everything if you don't contain it. It's like playing with fire in an oil refinery.

It is important, most claim to read but tbh they just get there theory second hand from memes.You should read

Idpol is short for identity politics.it's focousing om issues of identity like the progressive movement does over issues of class.We aren't black,white,asian,gay,bi,straight we are just proles who should focus on capitalism's downfall than petty issues that are themselves only there due to capitalism

Identity politics. race/sexuality/gender etc issues usually completely divorced from class issues.

I should add that right wing shit is also Identity politics,its not just progessives

They at least say they read but youd have to take their word for it. I see a lot of threads pop up time to time of people saying they cant read well.

Being voted in normal with actual views isn't infiltrating. Infiltrating is when someone lies about or tones down their actual stances to get in power.

To some people sitting there and reading a huge book can be hard,and if this is a problem anybody has you should either use audio books,just listening to it rather than reading can help, and join a reading group as motivation and discussion about the material can keep you on track

No problem, soon-to-be comrade!

You mentioned Obama's imperialism. So an example of idpol (short for identity politics), would be Obama using his blackness as a facade to trick liberals (both white and black) into condoning/ignoring his drone war.

I wasn't the disclaimer guy, just defending him. And if anything, his disclaimer triggering everyone is pretty much proof of his/my point.

But you're right in that this particular discussion is fucking useless, and shitting up the thread. Apologies, let's move on, and give more educational resources for this soon-to-be comrade.

It's fine, just my point being if you draw attention to it you create the discussion yourself. The civil rights movement isn't regarded as idpol, but I can create a thread giving the quick rundown on why the place is so paranoid towards it if anyone hasn't seen the graphs/videos/anecdotes of it and haven't seen it yet and is interested.

i don't know if you could say the democrats are more fascistic than the gop. they both support the expansion of the police state, they love unregulated capitalist economics, and they both have more or less the same forgien policy goals(protection and expansion of american dominence). where they really differ is on social stuff (gop hates gays democrats like them etc). they are essentially two sides of the same coin or as chompsky says they are different wings of the property party. they draw their support from normal people based on social ideas and not economic ones. hell even on some social issues they are the same. look at how the republicans jack off the police but the majority of the the police shootings but the majorty of riots because of racist police are in democrat controlled cities.

fascists are fascist no matter their economic views famarade

I'm glad you're interested i learning more about marxism OP. Lets jump right into this then.

I'll let you in on a secret OP. So did Marx, and so do I, and I'm willing to wager that, memes, rhetoric and a few edgelords aside, the rest of this board does too. So why the insistence on violent revolution? Because Marx did not see any way that the capitalist class would give up their power without it. He looked at past, and contemporary revolutions and saw that violence was necessary to gain even the smallest concessions, let alone transform an entire society (I.e. the French Revolution). In the liberation of India and the civil rights movement, the peaceful actions of Gandhi and MLK take center stage in today's liberal narratives. What they don't show you are the smaller groups in the same movement that threatened or used violence. Various groups in India were engaged in armed resistance while Gandhi was active, and the Black Panthers and those who followed Malcolm X had revolution in their platforms. These states were aware that if they didn't make concessions at some point, then non-violent protesters would start becoming revolutionaries. The history of labor accentuates Marx's point. I would recommend that you look up the Battle of Blair Mountain, the 1905 miner's strikes in Colorado, the massacre of Coeur d'Alene, the Pullman strike, and the Haymarket affair.

You are absolutely correct. Socialism exists to build the conditions for communism, and I think that socialism must spread all around the world for communism to come about. Communism's critics may have a point when they say that people today aren't ready for communism. Human behavior and society are shaped by the material condition's that they exist in. The conditions of slave society made slaves dependent on their masters, conditioning them psychologically for their roles as slaves, and masters for their roles as well. Feudalism did the same for Lord and Serf, having them believe that their social positions were set in stone by divine will. So to does capitalism do this. Accentuating greed and self-interest in people and society. So too will socialism shape people accentuating cooperation and common-interest. I think that even if socialism was established worldwide tomorrow, it would still take a few generations of people living under socialism before communism could develop.

Well if socialism means a big ass welfare state to you, cradle to grave stuff, then I can see where you're coming from. Let me ask you this though. What if the workers themselves directly owned and democratically managed the companies the they worked for? What if the companies came together in federations, and democratically planned production? What if consumers and the community that they operate in had a say in these decisions too? Wouldn't it be very hard to turn that system into an authoritarian state? This is what I mean when I say socialism, democratizing the economy.

that last sentence was kinda screwy. meant to say look at how the repubs jack off police but the majority of police shootings that result in riots and demostrations are in democrat citys like baltimore fergusson and baltimore

fuuuuck

the dems take on minorities as a way to use idpol. Hilldog was opposed to gay marriage for years and then suddenly when more people accepted it then disliked it she flipped. This is what liberals,American definition of liberals not the actual definition, do to get votes. It's just embracing identity politics as much as the reps oppose gays because of christfags and they know they can use that for votes

I'm well-aware. But I'm still worried about what type of slick entryism they're trying to pull here.

thats what im trying to say. both major american parties are same economically but position themselves on opposite ends of the culture war. dems like gays, city people and minorities and the repubs like christfags, rurals and whites.

Not that I don't believe you, but could I see the quote?

Give me a moment, I have to look it up.

No problem

Oh identity politics. Basically where the Dems were like, "vote Hillary for the first woman" & so many liberals went right along because they thought the idea of a woman president was more progressive than actual policy.

I mean, I think it'd be silly to say racism, sexism, etc don't exist, but it's just as silly to promote them as the main conflict. There is no "patriarchy" - when you're in the 1%, what you
are" no longer matters. Things like sexism and racism are good division tools for the capitalists.

For example BLM - I used to be interested in them, until I took a hard look at what they were pursuing and realized it wasn't very progressive at all. I think there are lots of well-intentioned ppl behind these mass liberal movements, but the actual leaders of the organization seem very shady. When Trump won & they chalked it all up to "White Supremacy," I was kinda done. Plus they're funded by Ford…no truly progressive movement is going to be funded by a big business.

Reminds me the day after Trump's election there was a massive protest on campus - I went to because why not. Got kinda uncomfortable when during the speeches given, one of the talkers said "Fuck white people," when over half the people there were white. Yeah - like racism & cop violence & the horrid prison system all need to be addressed, but to talk about them without addressing the capitalistic superstructure seems deductive and aimless imo. Especially blaming ppl with such a wide blanket like that.

I can read plenty - it's just finding the time tbh. But I'm here now, so I probably can make time if I try lol.

Ah yeah, gotcha. It just seems total bull to me that Obama's getting such insane high praise (talks of being "one of the best ever") when he did the same shit as Bush, except even worse because he got away with more. I must admit I used to be like that though. I considered myself liberal for a while, and especially with the more right-wing "criticisms" against him, (like the birth certificate & muslim shit) I actually saw him as underrated lol. He was hugely charismatic, a Democrat, (which in my uninformed mind meant progressive lol) and yeah the first Black president. I considered myself decently politically informed, but never really looked into what he did seriously.

For a long time, well over a year ago I knew Clinton was full of shit & was a hard Berner until the end, but it's taken me considerably longer (a few months ago) to take a hard look at Obama. And when I finally did, I realized I was utterly disgusted with him and the whole Democratic party. So yeah.

I get that Democrats and Republicans are basically just different coats of paint. I was kinda just replying to the comment about Trump not being too fascist - I guess they're all the same level of proto-fascist lol.

Yeah even though I wasn't all that interested back in the day I do recall quite a bit about the horrible treatment of the labor movement from middle/high school history class. I do get the increasing feeling that revolution is necessary. But I'd need to be really confident in our chances to win - otherwise the bloodshed would be pointless. If possible the revolution would have to be very highly strategized and organized - but yeah I should read more about revolutionary strategy and theory.

Hmm I know Communism then is a really long term goal & I've heard about Socialism being a transition period. Could you maybe give me some more concrete distinctions between the two I must confess I don't really get the difference atm.

Of course the problem with having it everywhere is that it neccesitates a huge mass movement & atm socialists at least in this part of the world still seem fringe and outcast. I just wonder what we can do right now to actively work for it.

Hmm that all sounds good if we could get it to that point. My worry is that in the process of getting there an authoritarian state might emerge. That in order to get everyone on the same page some sort of absolute state might come forth and then make the whole movement end short. But yeah I don't want to make assertions as I'm not well read enough yet.

I actually recently found out you can occasionally find ASMR vids of whole books so you can have it whispered to you. hah

no joke i learned leftist theroy by reading it than drunkenly yelling it at internet people

Oh btw I looked it up & is "The Reproduction of Daily Life" the work you're talking about? Seems like a quick read tbh. Found it here - btw is Marxists.org a good source?
marxists.org/reference/archive/rocker-rudolf/misc/anarchism-anarcho-syndicalism.htm

Shit, I got the name wrong. Here's a link libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-rudolf-rocker
Not a bad idea to read that anyway, though.

Marxists.org is a fine source, all it is is a collection of works from socialists, specifically Marxists.

OP, from what you've said so far it seems that you're on the right track. Sounds like you know more about communism than a good chunk of """""socialists""""" out there. Just keep on reading and you should be on your way. I recommend reading the following:
The Ego and Its Own
Stirner' s Critics
Wage, Labor and Capital
Value, Price and Profit
Das Kapital
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Debt: The First 5000 Years
Imo these are the intro texts to leftist thought.

This is a particularly good one. It's an easy read and debunks a lot of "BUT HYOOMAN NACHUUUR" crap. Peter Kropotkin in general is a cool dude.

idk,OP seems older than 14 I don't think max 'everything is my property because I say so' stirner will appeal to him

Wait wtf is the difference between ML and Leninism

It's fine but I noticed it is missing major works of some authors.

ML here is inferred to be Stalinism over just lenin's work on it's own

Nice try poltergeist.

Depends on who you ask, tbh. I find a great deal of ML's support the post-Lenin USSR (usually specifically Stalin), whereas Leninists usually go "OH SHIT IT ALL FUCKED UP. It varies from person to person, what Leninism means to one person could hold a completely different meaning to another.

Marxism-Leninism is lenin good stalin good. Leninism is Lenin good stalin bad

Thanks for all those! Mutual Aid sounds cool - I do get pissed at people who seem to think Capitalism is the best system even if you make evident it's flaws because it's the "best" we can do with human nature. Seriously while I earlier mentioned I think a lot of liberals are well intentioned if uninformed there are an irritating amount who if you keep grilling on capitalism/the system's hypocrisy they'll cling to "greed" being humanity's primary motivation.

Hmm what's Leninism/Egoism/ML? I know some things about Lenin & generally admire what he did though it clearly had flaws - I confess I'm quite ignorant about man specifics of the history of the Russian Revolutions/Civil War. I mean I do understand why functionally achieving communism was impossible (the means weren't there for industrialization) but I think it's dangerous to see Stalin's USSR as anything but an abject failure. It's prominence & easy use as anti-leftist propaganda has seriously discredited socialism in the West of course a lot of that also involved active suppression/smear campaigns via our own gov but still. I'm sure there's a lot to be learned from those men/that era but I highly doubt anything would be gained by pure imitation.

Individualist anarchism as written by Stirner. It's nothing above meme tier, tbh
"Lenin was good, Stalin fucked up"
"Lenin was good, Stalin was also good." or "Lenin was good, Stalin was bad, but the eastern bloc was also good". ML was basically the ideology of all the countries controlled by a communist party, excluding a very small few.

Shit, I can't find it right now. For now, I rescind the point, and I'm going to go digging around for where I saw that.

something I've noticed in liberal parlance is that 'violence' is taken to mean anything where the current structure of society is broken down. in terms of people actually being hurt or killed, socialist revolutions have seen minimal bloodshed (I'm thinking of Russia and the Paris Commune - large scale bloodshed is typically what accompanies capitalist reaction to attempted and successful revolutions afterwards).

some socialists believe warfare waged by a minority of armed militants can usher in socialism, but this is definitely a deviation from traditional Marxist thought (and much of socialist thought today even).

other anons pretty much answered this already but honestly, MLK was getting pretty leftist towards the end of his life and basically did not believe in Gandhi's idea that one should be non-violent in the face of violence, i.e. that self-defence was unjust. also, not only was Gandhi very selective about which violence he gave a pass for (he told Indians serving in the British Army they should obey their commanders regardless of violence), he was overall a complete arch-reactionary who was whitewashed later to scrub the narrative of Indian national liberation clean of the masses of people who actually made it happen (who did not necessarily abide by any principles of non-violence).

more or less, although Maoism is a bit deviation from traditional Marxism in that it looks to the peasantry as a revolutionary class.

I'm not here to make excuses for genocide, and I think Stalin and Mao were arch-reactionaries all the same, but you'd do well to read death counts given critically.

anyone I've known who read Capital said it was surprisingly not that dry, but they did give me the impression that it was very long and concept-intensive.

a word on accelerationism and this 'Trump > Hillary' line many people here seem to be strangely fixated on: the Communist Manifesto, while it is now a very dated piece, outlines reforms that Marx believes will advance socialism. Marx himself was never a reformist, but I think he recognized that a better educated, more confident proletariat with more time away from the drudgery of labour were better equipped to organize to overthrow capitalism. combined with the fact that the system has been in crisis since 2008, I think there is little merit to the idea that deepening a capitalist crisis is always conducive towards revolution, and none of the socialists I've met irl entertained the idea. this seems to coincide with the idea that we should cut immigration to crash capitalism by interfering with the international free market, which is of extremely dubious origin imo.

anyway, I thoroughly agree with the user who suggested you read Wage Labour & Capital by Marx and Engels, it's a very solid introduction to the critique of capitalism at the core of Marxist thought.

you remind me of myself 7 years ago when I was deliberating about my own political outlook, good luck in your learnings and hopefully we answer your questions well enough to give you some insight.

This
Accelerationists and anti-immigration accelerationists are the cancer here tbh

t. Big Sitting Chief Wedge Shoehorn

go home nazbol

Reddit tier.

I can't tell how much of it is Holla Forumsyps trying to confuse newbs, but I've assumed most of that and the Assad cheerleading has been 100% unironic so far, and it's fucking terrible.

Stop replying to yourself.

assad is trash but the the syrian government and the YPG are the best options right now

kill yourself dude.

kek your a fucking samefag dude

Thankfully, most people here now consider Assad a meme because of Phil Greaves' antics showing how fucking stupid you become when you support him.

kek so lesser evilism is ok in Syria (even though Assad literally wants YPG gone), but none in a US election
lol fuck off nazbol trash

Nice try "newb"

go home samefag

I keep seeing this drama about Phil Greaves and Red Kahina/Molly Klein in the PPG thread, is Phil Greaves known for anything other than being a twitter tankie or is he literally just that relevant?

I never claimed to be a newb to leftism at all, although I haven't been on Holla Forums that long. was my first reply, maybe you just had trouble reading it. I also didn't say accelerationism was Holla Forums, I just said it was suspicious because it's often peppered with racist rhetoric in regards to immigration. once again, do you struggle with reading?

don't worry about it user, zhe's a retard

It's time to stop posting retard, you're only showing everyone how much of a newfag you are with your completely oblivious idea of what a samefag is.

This was sort of what I was getting at. Those two ideas wouldn't be prevalent if they had been properly debunked. As nobody has actually managed to yet they've persisted a long time and are not Holla Forums. Generally the people opposing them resort to appeals to morality which as we know doesn't fly here. Assad is a meme though as someone already pointed out.
I know, because unlike the pleb spazzing out in an alcohol induced stupor I can tell who is who.

Trump is truly a shining example for that, amarite

not disagreeing but the meritocracy is only true for america's upper class. it doesn't matter how smart a poor person is if he can't afford to go to uni or can only afford to go to a state uni

it's cool fam, that was directed at the guy claiming samefag as well.

imo this is the most likely explanation, although from time to time people with the Nazi flag come along and say 'lol you guys should hate faggots/blacks like we do because x pseudoleftist said y', so it makes one wonder.

/R/SOCIALISM GET OUT
Seriously, I propose we should ban any self-proclaimed Marxist who demonstrates he has never read Capital and does not understand any of the points he makes.

Holla Forums are losing users and we have rapidly gained several hundred in a short space of time, sticking around the 800/900 mark. The few users coming here trying to form an alliance with us are not Holla Forums but a few users who have recognised our growing influence and are hoping to use us for their own ends with some concessions they can't even uphold. The Nazbols aren't as cynical as them in that respect (in my opinion) but they are more cynical in that they will pander to national identity to attempt a rerun of Stalin's USSR in whatever country they gain power. I don't really see much of a problem in that since simultaneous global revolution is quite an idealistic concept which is unprecedented and socialism in one country has actually occurred before but using nationalist sentiment does leave you open to co-opting by big business as what happened between what became the Nazis and the Black Front.

like you?

Stirner is worth a (critical) read and there are ideas in there that are worthwhile and having a reasonable understanding of "spooks" is good for memeing in that it can get normies asking questions and give you a wedge into conversation. But I personally never recommend The Ego and His Own without also recommending The German Ideology

That would work only if mods read Marx themselves.

But - yes. People should be banned for posting this:

That's RDWolff. They've been here for a long time.

thanks for the rundown user.

Strong suggestion you have a look at Bookchin ("The Next Revolution"), he's one of the better ex-Marxists.

bookchin reading list

And how have things qualitatively changed for Black people since then? They may not have to drink from separate water fountains any more but the vast majority are still disenfranchised, exploited, and in some cases outright enslaved thanks to the prison system.

Bourgeois might tolerate superficial or cosmetic reforms, like letting black people get voted into office, but they'll never tolerate systemic change, especially if or when it means hurting their pocket books.

I tried to reccommend literature that are good foundations to build on. Try to keep it to about half-anarcho half-Marxist and I'd rather have people reading Stirner over Proudhon out of the earlier anarchists. I recommended the Ego and Its Own because it's a good way to get out of moral thinking that plagues the left. I put Stirner's Critics afterwards because in it Stirner clarifies his stance and responds to common misconceptions that people had and continue to have to his work. Alot of people think that because Stirner is about selfishness it means he's just the Ayn Rand of anarchism, but he's something more than that. Just make sure to read Stirner's Critics right after the Ego and Its Own. The two just go together.

Don't fall for the revolution meme.

People here actually believe they will have a war against the government and win. This is merely a LARPing board and if you actually promote realistic policy change, they will accuse you of killing Rosa Luxemburg.

...

On the issue of violence - not all, or even most resistance will be violent in nature. People, organizing themselves in their own best interest, will find many ways to fight back. They are already doing this. There will be police-sanctioned mass protest, one-day walk outs, general strikes, blockades, letter-writing, boycotts, etc - and this will most likely be the vast majority of the resistance. Just recently in India, the Naxalites, terrorists, organized a mass-strike among state workers that reportedly reached over 100 million people.

I don't like violence, I don't want civil war in my country, I don't want to see people being executed. But if people have both the ability and the desire to emancipate themselves through violence, to break away from police terror and poverty, I think it's inhumane to say that they shouldn't.
Here's an article demonstrating this sort of resistance: reason.com/blog/2016/11/01/the-mexican-town-that-kicked-out-the-car

Please, do not look at Ghandi for guidance or help.
And please, do not say that MLK's message got through. He started whipping up the poor into becoming more left-leaning, and the government quickly moved to give them civil rights to pacify them since they had no intention of giving them socialism. There are very few "peaceful" movements that actually accomplished anything, and even both of those group had more violent, radical elements.

That's why you shoot them, silly.

Even though MLK and Ghandi were pacifists and were able to achieve something, the potential achievements by violent means would be much greater.
You speak from an bourgeois stance when you indiscriminently disregard violence as a means for change. There is nothing more effective than the people rising up to take what is their by force.

There's democratic socialism and anarchism which solves this dilemma.

I think violent revolution is the only way it will happen. We cannot expect just to reform our way to socialism. But if we can non-violently build socialism and then communism I'm for it.

Google Blanquism

Why does this make you uncomfortable when liberalism itself was founded on violent revolutions?

Most people just want the consumption lifestyle to never end. Not really a surprise. Everything else (even politics) is just finding something to fill the time.

What?

They're just sperging about the "coops aren't socialism" meme.