I've read leftist works and studied theory and I understand and agree with it all but I can't stop being racist

A Somali refugee gang raped my cousin three weeks ago, but no there is clearly nothing going wrong in this multicultural experiment here in Sweden..

Truly, the cowards way.

Who's gonna get things of the top shelf on a Saturday?

That's only fair. I'm also a leftist and i'm racist towards americans. I just don't think people living in european countries should trust them. They don't make anything uselful, only shit and they clearly have plans for world domination.
Their people are also complacent with this, since they keep electing the same type of people and rarely protested against their actions. Clearly they don't midn that their taxes money is supporting for Guatanamo Bay or military bases abroad. They are part of the problem. They are cultureless and barbarians and we must get ride of them, fast!

Truly, the cowards way.

damn

OP here
I agree, americans are fucking retarded, I trust them only above the third world savages destroying my homeland

Funny how whenever this topic comes up on youtube there is a German or Swede who has been horribly victimized by refugees in the last month.
Whenever they have a username though it takes around a minute to find out it's some right wing faggot from America.

this tbh
burgers should be quarantined to a McGulag's and shot in the back

American are subhuman as well, their years of capitalist brainwashing wont ever allow them to become leftists

...

I meant I have read the anti race realist archives before because someone linked it to me.

memebrain is real.

just become a nazbol OP or read stirner

Great Internet McFirewall™ when?

How many swedes get rapped by other white swedes in any given year?

Sooo, in threads when both pov are discussed with studies backing, the overall impression is not in favor of race realism?

Even if there are any psychological differences among human "races" they are greatly overwhelmed by cultural and material conditions. most humans given the right conditions can be peacefull and productive.

Holy shit you're a fucking retard

Humans are products of their environments, niggers in 3rd world countries are born to fail because of the environment they are raised in. Our goal is to eliminate this gap and make humanity as a whole stronger.

You realize your beliefs are retarded. You just need to find the theory that supports what you're trying to replace, comrade.

CRISPR will make any purported racial differences in intelligence moot as soon as we have a serviceable genetic model for the inheritance of intelligence

Despite what Holla Forums's idpolers will tell you, you be a leftist and still hate brown people.

None. White people can't rap.

lel

being racist is simply being liberal with your beliefs anyway. what can go wrong? they actually start reading more because we tell them to?

BUT MUH CRIME STATISTICS :^(

I'm sure the crime statistics are falsified as a means to an end in the form of propaganda but that doesn't change the fact that instead of trying to learn or read more we have this issue where many minorities just don't like the English language so they make their own and tend to say fuck reading and all but the gang members want to ban guns effectively leaving their communities at the mercy of criminals they have no intention of fighting back against because they are the very same wild street thugs (even whites) that are raised by single mothers. I just don't believe that environment is a big excuse when there's enough of the political programming to go around to brain wash people left or right. If we actually want to solve racism then we have to seek to solve inherent issues associated with races which are disadvantaged. Actual solutions preferred please and thank you.

If you are a "race realist" it likely means that you have below average intellegence and cannot evaluate the difference between causative and correlative relationships or think critically. And if you think that anybody should be excluded from the global commune based on ability such as your own dumb ass, then your commune is not grounded in an understanding of any developed moral philosophy compatable with communism.

...

I am going to tell mommy you are on the computer again timmy

I think it's simply laughably ironic that you spelled intelligence wrong in your statement
I can literally work hard as fuck and be a dumbshit and still get more money than lazy people. The only thing that matters is to stop filling your coffers with propaganda that just gets stopped by other propaganda. You can collect memes all you want and try to convince people that political correctness works, or you can just say fuck it and go full Nazi for funsies. Who wouldn't want to at least reason with the other side before they just fling shit? It's easy to be racist when the parameters are much easier to fill than they were a decade ago.

go take your ritalin you dumb autist

pls your ad hominem is so rude, I thought from the looks of some of the threads on leftypol it would give me a break from the constant shilling and be more of a torture chamber but it seems that my honest criticisms and contributions are definitely unwelcome here even if I'm moderate about it. Shills are in overdrive on Holla Forums so i figured I'd do my part here, but I'm not really trying to get a ban so could you refrain from being an arse and enlighten me?

tomorrow morning take a bus, to the nearest hospital and tell them you might have autism, then follow their recommendations

I absolute do not like going to the doctor and having more reasons to be reliant on socialized medicine to deal with all my problems. I like to be individualistic and decide all these things on my own. I've never needed medicine before and I've functioned just fine at multiple jobs since I started working 5 years ago so why do I need meds now? Is it that I'm not a college grad with a huge debt funding the government machine by getting a degree and being a useful idiot? you're still being misleading

timmy stop, you are hurting yourself and harming your family, please listen to the doctors and take your medication, its not jewish cabalistic science, your family wants what is the best for you, take you medication and stop reading autistic things on the internet

as a burger, I want to wear your skin

I'm reading what your writing and its not very convincing, and I do a lot more than just reading the autistic things. I'm serious when I say I've never had to rely on doctor's medicine to get me by and I still hold down a job fine. I just think it's ridiculous that everyone is so content with normal faggot fun. There's a certain amount of tolerance that I extend to every human being offline irl that I come across, but they tend to be bigoted by ideology, so how is either side better or worse if its all divide and conquer and infighting for our nation as a whole. Just don't seem to make sense to me accusing me of needing medicine when I have no history of any actual mental health illness.

but seriously wouldn't it just be a matter of principal not to seek out extra unneeded medical care if I do not have
ANY FUCKING PROBLEMS?

All you have to do is compare native Africans with the descendants of slaves to see how quickly humans can diverge.

Compare Kenyans and Jamaicans, they show huge physiological differences created through only a few generations of extremely harsh eugenics. There's a reason marathon gold medallists are always native to Africa while sprinting gold medallists are always born in former slave colonies. African-Americans are very different to the people they are descended from in Africa.

And the idea that divergence occurs only in the body but not the brain makes no sense.

you dumb autist

There's nothing wrong with being a racist.

Genocide urself

Have you ever had medical bills?

Let's momentarily disregard any possibility of biological differences between races.

One of the biggest markers for poverty is single-parent households. 70% of black Americans are now raised in a single parent households. Back in the 1920's it was closer to 20%. So something has happened in that time to destroy the black family. One possible reason for this is divorce and single-parenthood effectively being incentivised or subsidised by the government.

The worry is that a similar thing is happening to whites, in that during the 1920's something like 5% of white children were raised in single-parent households, while now it's almost 30%. The destruction of the nuclear family is ruining our societies and if it continues on we're all fucked.

Yeah, the drug war and incentivized private incarceration definitely don't have anything to do with it. It's those awful single mothers.

Idiot.

Even if your assertion that single-motherhood is what is causing all these problems was true, then that is just more evidence that Capitalism is its own undoing

Why can't you just accept that your shitty system doesn't work?

Why can't you accept that the so called "Ideal Conditions" for your system are being systematically destroyed for the sake of profit?

I'm new to this board and I'm disappointed with the level of discourse on here.
Cunt.
I agree the drug war is a major factor and we should end it. And whatever has caused their degenerate gangster culture in the last 5 or so decades also needs looking at, partly the drug war I guess.

Again

Can you expand on that further? Seems to me a big cause of it is socialist policies, ie allowing single women to effectively "marry" the government, making men a lot less necessary, mothers get more welfare if there's no man in the house.

Although fundamentally I think it has more to do with the loss of structured religion over the last century.

So much this. But you can't get that through these liberal cunts' heads

I'm beginning to wonder if arguing fascism/communism and all this political nonsense is even worthwhile. Seems like the root cause of all this ideological possession goes back over a hundred years, and is not rooted in politics at all, but in philosophy. And if we want to fix it we need to bring God back somehow.

First off there is no such thing a socialist policies, just more liberal policies, as far as policies in a capitalistic society.
As far as how that causes single-motherhood, the strongest cause of divorce is economic issues, i.e. the male who would have been the sole breadwinner in past decades is no long able to sustain the "nuclear family unit".

alrighty so around the 1920s womens got their vote and then voted for welfare policies and eventually divorce and kicked god out of the house and now they're working on kicking the father out of the family. Essentially making women completely supported by the government undermining men. This causes birthrates to plummet and society to simply collapse from lack of men's involvement in the nature of capitalism yes essentially destroying itself.

It's pretty common to call policies along those lines socialist, what's the distinction?
Why would that lead to more divorce?
If it's harder to provide for a family now than it was then, it wouldn't make sense for women to kick the main breadwinner out of the house.

Try actually spending time with non-whites
I never get this right wing meme that social-liberals have never had to live around blacks, mexicans, etc
I've always had friends from around the world, it's the reason I'm not a racist. They're just people.

Be honest with yourself now, what women would want to stay married with you?

I did, that's why I am both racist and race-realist.

Nerd gets bullied, more news at 11

How is that the fault of capitalism?
And if women really are civilisation destroyers seems like men fucked up by giving them the vote.

I have, and had generally positive experiences with East-Asians, Persians, South Americans, Kenyans and Sudanese. But I still hold to the idea that it's better that we all have a fairly segregated homeland with our distinct cultures. People self segregate, we're inherently tribal through hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and are happiest and most peaceful amongst people similar to us. Multiculturalism is a terrible idea that destroys cultures and creates division.

you are literally retarded

Are you generally racist or do you just hate blacks?

yes Hitler rose to power after women got the vote from men so ya probably part of the reason

The distinction is that those polices are not socialist in any way, they don't further socialism nor do they define socialism. Its the american problem of conflating left liberalism and socialism that is the distinction.

The other question has to do with the fact that familial relations are not always rational coupled with the fact that your so called "socialist" polices provide a net for the woman and child to fall back on thus lessening the pressure to "make it work"

I should note that I don't disagree with these social safety nets in principle I just see how social welfare of a society and the profits of a capitalistic society are diametrically opposed to one another resulting in either social welfare being sacrificed to satisfy the need of ever growing profits or profits being sacrificed for social welfare where there is no "happy medium" eventually resulting in some kind of crisis

Race is a spook, buddy. Try harder, you'll unspook yourself soon enough.

I see what you mean, given the actual definition.
How would you define Denmark's economic and social policy?

I don't see how you can say this, there have never been any countries in all of human history that had higher living standards than today's western capitalist democracies.
Even if you could demonstrate that in principle profit motives are diametrically opposed to social welfare, the fact is the free pursuit of profits has led to comfort, wealth and progress never before seen.

This. I've worked with people from around the world and across political and economic spectrums. Some were shitty, some weren't. Skin color didn't really have a strong correlation.

Denmark is a Liberal Democracy just with more emphasis on left liberal

Free pursuit of profits also leads to 20 million deaths a year being caused by preventable problems such as shelter, food and water

...

Also need I remind you that Flint, MI is still a thing some what 2 years later

How do you figure it leads to them?
And have humans figured out a system that doesn't "lead to" millions of preventable deaths? Not many people claim capitalist democracies are perfect, but they seem to do pretty well when compared to any other system that's been implemented.

Are you referring to the overall economy, or the lead in the pipes?

How does it not lead to those deaths? The only reason 20 million people die from hunger, lack of water, and preventable diseases is because it is not profitable to do all these things

I'm referring to the fact that Flint, MI still has shit water and the only reason it has shit water is because 1. Michigan was to fuckin cheap to not use pipes with lead in them and 2. in preperration to privatize Flints water supply they moved Flint off of the same water supply that Detroit uses to some polluted river that was volatile enough to leach the lead out of the pipes Michigan cut corners on when they installed them

Despok yourself and read Stirner then read Marx and then Rudolf Rocker

Capitalism is currently ruining Greece for example. Dismantling state aid programs like guaranteed access to food, shelter, or healthcare is a prerequisite for IMF/World Bank "assistance" for another. Then you have the recent "microloans" fad that liberals said would save the third world but instead just damaged local economies further.

And in top of everything you have the current ongoing capitalist disaster that continues to disintegrate the global economy, leading to national hardship and international tensions.

And no capitalist country has managed to make the sort of gains or progress as the Soviet Union, arguments about the country's "socialist status" aside.

Have you got a source for this 20 million number? So I know exactly what you are saying.
I don't know the specifics of the Michigan pipe situation but understand it was due to heinous and cheap decisions.

No system has been more successful in reducing poverty, increasing economic mobility, and enabling technological progress and healthy societies than capitalism. It is far from perfect, but it isn't a coincidence that western capitalist democracies are the best places to live on the planet.

Saying capitalism "leads to" those 20 million deaths seems misleading because I don't know an alternative system that would save those people.

What do you mean there's no divergence? Skull size/shape, different levels of hormones, different dietary adaptations, wildly varied responses to medication, etc.

Unfortunately I'm unable to find the original that listed the sources with full URLs

you know that solving those problems would only increase the amounts of deaths eventually right?

Can you expand on those?
Greece is a terrible example, their government has been pushing insane policies for decades. They are massively overtaxed, leading to rife tax avoidance, in order to pay for unaffordable benefit programs that have killed the economy.
To a conservative capitalist they are an example of what not to do, and what liberal policies when pushed to the extreme can do to an economy.

Over a billion people have been lifted out of extreme poverty since 1990, many of the poorest places on the earth are gaining access to electricity, communications and modern medicine everyday. I don't know what "capitalist disaster" you're talking about.

What? Russia still has terrible living standards, and the people living under the Soviet Union suffered horrifically through the 20th century. The Gulags alone are responsible for tens of millions of deaths.

So your solution is just not doing anything about them?

All 'preventable' deaths around the world are because of capitalism? I genuinely don't understand how you make that leap.

Western capitalist countries have practically stamped out those problems within their own borders. If the third world follows in those footsteps they'll reach the same living standards.
They already are in fact, China and India have relatively free markets, are industrialising at ridiculous rates and the reduction of poverty in those countries since then has been extremely rapid.

That's what preventable means. We could prevent 20 million deaths a year, we don't because it is not profitable

The first world literally cannot exist without a third world to exploit. Resources are not magically praxed into existence.

And that's the fault of capitalism? An enormous percent of the human population has died of preventable causes every year since the beginning of time, capitalism did not and does not cause those deaths.

We'll have to see what the future holds, automation may change things.
As it is, every decade fewer places on the planet are third world, and more and more people are being lifted out of abject poverty.

There is no capitalism in one country. These countries don't exist in an abstract vacuum, but are heavily influenced by their neighbors, their partners and allies. "Capital" itself had no borders, and effectively motivates all that happens, the more capitalism becomes predominant, since everything is commodified.

Without the exploitation of the third world, in India, China, Africa and the environment in general there wouldn't be the same standard of life in the western world. And I'm not trying to make some moralistic argument, but instead am just pointing out that this isn't sustainable.

And that's ultimately the point. While, when looking at society just from the current point of view, one would say that the life standards are the highest ever (although when considering suicide rates in some countries this is debatable. It's not wrong, there's just more to it), the problem is that within the current systems, the interests it incentivises, and the effects it has on people everywhere, this isn't sustained, and will either kill itself or humanity (hyperbola).

And that's why most of us are socialists. We aren't here to replaced the system, as in throwing it away entirely, but to supplant it and do away with it's contradictions, caused by production for commodity exchange and wage labour (two central blocks of capitalism, not "free exchange" and "voluntary contracts")

Socialists are not supporting these policies from a long-term perspective. Sure, they might help or harm people right now, but this isn't what socialists are about, and callit it a socialist policy, only creates confusion.

" Kicking out" a person out of a household can reduce the required costs by quite a bit, especially if they are unemployed. But since I'm not an expert onthe economic backgrounds of divorce, I shall not say anything more about this.

It will change things, and it will not be pretty.

Regarding the picture:
A lot of those problems are due to crony capitalism and government overreach and expansion. I'm as unhappy as you are with the direction the US has gone in the last 6 decades and want change too.
Blacks and hispanics commit more crimes. More of them end up in jail.
The drug war is bullshit and should be ended immediately though.
Poverty in the US is hardly real poverty, not when compared to the rest of the world, and especially not when viewed with respect to historical standards. The poorest Americans still have relatively high living standards.
Crony capitalism again, though America's huge military budget is good for a lot of the world as global hegemony has led to a relatively peaceful planet for decades. I stress relatively.

Agreed.
When considering that all other causes of deaths go down, it's not surprising suicide goes up.

I get what you're saying about sustainability, but it seems to me so many of the criticisms levelled at capitalist societies are done without enough perspective. When you take how bad it is to live in the rest of the world, and how difficult and brutal life has been for all of our history, you begin to realise what a paradise the west really is.

"Over a billion people have been lifted it it poverty" due to wealth transference from the first world working class to the third, with a significant portion of that going, unsurprisingly, to the upper class.

And no, Greece is the perfect example despite your attempted misdirection. It's the direct result of capitalism and the EU's neoliberal policies.

Russia has "terrible living standards" because, hey, capitalism! Meanwhile as the Soviet Union it transformed Europe's backwater into the world's first space faring nation in less fifty years and provided three quarters of a century of economic development and improved living standards. Your gulag misdirection isn't even worth addressing.

mit.edu/~thistle/v13/2/imf.html
globalissues.org/article/3/structural-adjustment-a-major-cause-of-poverty

Called "structural adjustment policies," the IMF demands the sort of welfare dismantling we've been seeing in the first world, where programs that help the working class are cancelled in order to give money to corporations. Money flows away from the poor that need it to the already wealthy, as do public assets like control of water supply or other essential national resources, like we're seeing in Guatemala and again in Greece. It's ruthlessly calculated to emiserate the working class and enrich the bourgeoisie.

Capitalism is shit, unless you're at the top.

Just fucking kill yourself already you worthless piece of shit.

It's just capitalism

The Crusaders never ejected the Muslims fully from the holy land and regularly allied with them. Crusader states were dependent on Muslims to survive.

As already mentioned: national borders don't constitute economic borders. Capitalism is de facto international. Ignoring those that are worse of, is ignoring the failures of the system.

If the exploitation of the third world isn't maintainable, so the wealth of the first isn't either.

Minority communities are policed more, they are given harsher sentences, and most cases never go to trial and instead the defendant takes a plea deal because they're a retard with a retarded lawyer and are afraid of being buttfucked for decades, so it's impossible to know if they're even guilty and not just gullible or afraid. That's not even taking into account the material conditions that might predispose them to crime, like poverty and their communities and families being destroyed by the prison-industrial complex.
That's just a weasel word that means "stuff about capitalism that I don't like".
Only for the West and it's likely impossible to prove that it's because of America.
It doesn't work that way otherwise suicides would correlate with less deaths in different cultures.
Because of capitalism or imperialism destroying previously stable cultures and societies and continuing to exploit the current ones, doing their best to keep them weak.
The medieval serf worked less than the modern 1st world worker, not to mention the work they did was significantly better and gave more freedom than the horrific conditions that the West saw in the past and the ones that still exist in the rest of the world, not to mention the general alienation of modern society that's so horrible it has to be dealt with through pharmaceuticals, consumerism, addiction, and eventually suicide.

Fuck off with your shitposting. The guy is being perfectly civil and reasonable and you glorious uprising like a Holla Forumstard. Stop giving us a bad image.

Don't forget that cops are trained to manipulate their captives. Pretty much from the second they're in cuffs they're working on them to get them to betray themselves "in their own interest," and that exercising their rights and not facilitating their own conviction is interpreted by the court as being uncooperative.

Feel free to go fuck yourself along with him

I disagree

I don't think neo-liberalism supports the high taxation and massive benefits schemes of Greece. I don't know enough about Greece to act like an authority on it, but to my view Greece is not a good example of what I would advocate as a healthy capitalist system.

How can you ignore the tens of millions dead and the decades of torture and oppression? I'd seriously like to know, I've read a bit about the horrors of the Soviet Union, but if you have some alternative view on history I'm open to it.
I'm here to learn user.

Russia has had terrible living standards for all of its history.

I'm not defending the EU or the IMF, capitalism to me is just free enterprise, voluntary exchange with minimal government interference. Crony capitalism and corruption at the highest levels is a perversion of this.
You could argue that this corruption and abuse of power is fundamental and impossible to avoid in capitalism, but it seems like that would end up being the case for any system.

I probably want to see the elites hang as much as you do.

That's the logical conclusion of free enterprise with the intent of securing profits if you're not a retard.

Because crime is more prevalent in their communities.
I've seen mixed sources on this.
I've seen studies showing white people are more likely to be shot in similar circumstances than blacks.
It takes a massive uptick in wealth before blacks commit crimes on par with whites.
There are obviously fundamental differences in black and white communities, how much of this is racial, cultural or systemic is up for debate. Asian neighbourhoods lower on the socioeconomic scale are much less prone to criminality than black neighbourhoods for instance. There is something deeply wrong with black communities, the destruction of their families seems high on that list.
No it's not, it is a perversion of capitalism.
For quite a lot of the world, though there's plenty of places that that's obviously not true for. If America continues to decline and other countries begin to level the military playing field we're going to move towards the increased possibility of more world wars.
The southern horn of Africa was in the process of being conquered by the Zulu when whitey rocked up, this has been the way of the world for all our recorded history and presumably long before it. I don't expect to change fundamental human nature.
Serfs were slaves bound to their land and their lord. They lived without freedoms and without rights. They lived short and hard lives, and could die of famine, disease or be conscripted to die in some miserable war at any time.

I'm pretty sympathetic to what you're saying about life in the modern city. Ted Kaczynski had some fair points.

Are you as outraged by the American prison system and its slave labor and human rights abuses or do you only have a problem with incarceration when it's rhetorically convenient

Keep in mind that most people here do not agree with most of the policies implemented in the USSR. There was a poll a few days ago, and even though there was a Holla Forums raid, most people said it's "state capitalism": strawpoll.me/12484451/r

I'm not going to play the game of which definition of capitalism is the "true" one, but I'll tell you this: When we talk about capitalism and call a system capitalist, we are not referring to these things, but a society with private ownership over the means of production, commodity production for exchange and wage labor. What you call "Crony capitalism" is merely when capitalism tries to protect itself from breaking apart due to it's contradiction.

I hope you won't get stuck on this definition stuff. Just translate in your head what we mean when you say capitalism. We have to do the same nearly all the time too.

WebMs and links related:
youtube.com/watch?v=T9Whccunka4
youtube.com/watch?v=AULJlwoI3TI
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

If you're interested in reading material, look no further than , >>>/freedu/, marxists.org/ or theanarchistlibrary.org/

It's not all that simple, there is quite a lot of theory behind all of this. I don't know everything either, and am still learning too. If you don't troll or ask obnoxious questions, you'll have no problems on this board.

If you're a utopian idealist maybe. In the real world it's its function by design.

I'm outraged by non-violent drug offenders being imprisoned, and disturbed by the privatisation of prisons.
Still waiting for an explanation of the Gulags.

Seems like we have identical problems user, I'm criticising what you don't call real communism, and you're criticising what I don't call real capitalism.
The issue is I don't know of a single country that attempted to follow Marxism, communism or socialism that didn't end up an authoritarian dictatorship rife with oppression, poverty, murder and torture. The 20th century has a dozen examples of this.
Whereas at the very least we can find a lot of countries that follow capitalism to some degree that are relatively great to live in. Severely flawed and rife with abuse we can agree, but considering how shitty humans are it doesn't seem so bad.

I am very opposed to this. But I'm not bright enough to suggest solutions.
Heads could roll though.

Fundamentally I just want the government to be small and to leave me alone. I hate politicians and I mistrust the government. Capitalism is sometimes OK in this respect, communism seems antithetical to it.

What's there to explain? I don't give a shit about gulags and you don't give a shit about capitalist prisons and torture, so fuck off with your attempts at misdirection with bourgeois moralism.

nazism is a mental disorder

kek. no you're not.

I'm always confused why people accuse socialists/communists of saying "that's not real communism" - just by adding the real, IMO, it make the statement much worse.

But as already mentioned, there are numerous interpretations and analysis on what happed in the USSR. One has to remember that the word "communists" applies nearly to the whole left-end of the poilitical spectrum, contrary to fascism or right-wing libertarianism, that's centered in the corners. Stalinists will say it was socialism until Khrushchev, MLs may say it was socialism (not Communism, since Leninists don't conciser these terms equal) until '89, while anarchist would straight out deny it. Personally, I'm more of a communalist, so I tend towards this direction.

Although I have already mentioned this before, I'll say it again: It makes no sense to look at a economic system just within one nation. Politics is subordinated to capitalism, not the other way around. Therefore the state will effectively/evenutally act in the interest of the economy, not the state. This is, IMO, the central problem with right-wing libertarianism, fascism and social democracy.

Historically speaking, one has to always look at the circumstances regarding how these states took power. I will suppose that you are for the most part refering to the USSR, eastern-block states, China, etc. Besides them being "communist" by some sense of the word, most of them have the following in common:
- They were run by "communist parties", which either had strong bonds or inspiration from the Soviet Union (exception: early USSR). It's not hard to see that the late USSR elite wasn't interested in socialism, other than it being a legitimization for their power (see youtube.com/watch?v=j9Z05xyGB0c)
- They came out of previously corrupt or inexistent democracies, with near-to-no educated classes
- They came out of world- or civil wars, which destroyed their industries, agriculture and shelter
- They had internal enemies (wanting to revert back to the old system their favored) or external enemies (wanting them to return to their sphere of influence) which either actively or passively subverted the socialists operations.

Just simplifying this to the fact that they followed "Marxism, communism or socialism", will not do it, especially for us, if we are intending to understand what they did wrong and what not.

Again, their success isn't without any context. Western Europe had massive aids from the USA - a country practically unharmed when compared to eastern Europe.

(cont.)

I like to ask people who bring this up why they believe such phenomena arise. In my eyes, it seems obvious, that those in power, with the economic advantages will do all they can to obstruct the "free market" - a system that would supposedly deliver the best results, but only under ideal circumstances (assuming everyone knows all the items on the market, assuming everyone is ready to invest into making a better product if the market is lacking, no time or space in a mathematical sense, etc.). As a consumer, I too am not interested in the market itself. All I want is the opportunity to get what I want to still my needs. As long as it delivers, any system will do. So in the end, only small businesses, as long as they are competing against each other want the market. As soon as they decide to team up, and they are strong enough, they don't, and will do all they can to destroy competition. What we see today, in what you call "Crony capitalism" is basically this. They use the state to suppress competition. But what one should not think is, that if there were no or next to no state to intervene, that all would be good. They would just use different methods to get to the same result. Be it advertising, buying up competition or advanced psychological warfare and simple stuff like brand loyalty. Other industries on the other hand depend on the state for it's state power and justice system, and the economy depends on them for growth: Banks, Insurance companies, etc. - in other words, finance capital, the sector that makes sure that capitalism grows, and sustains this growth.

A little tip: don't confine your thinking merely to "free market" vs. "the state". I conciser this a false dichotomy, since the two are in so many ways interwoven. And it would be just as absurd to claim one end as the other. I wouldn't want everything in my life commodifed, just as much as I wouldn't want a go through a bureaucracy to buy bubble gum.

Fundamentally, I agree. I always say "global issues should be solved on a global level, regional issues on a regional level, local on a local level and personal on a personal level". To me this means, that if I am not harming anyone or ignoring my responsibilities, that nobody should bother me. As mentioned before, I'm a communalist, aka. I agree with Bookchin on many things. I suspect that you might too, so I attracted one of his basic books (The Next Revolution), in case you don't know about him.

Seriously, Google Bookchin.

And again we have this amusing definition-twist, since I want socialism for the same reasons. I suppose that if I were to use your definitions of "capitalism" (free market) and "communism" (state) that I'd arrive to the same conclusion.

But as I see capitalism as a profit-maximizing systems, that effectively acts so that profit is generated, I ask myself "Is everything that is profitable, in my interest?"

My answer to this is, that it depends on the circumstances. After WW2, the FGR was destroyed. The profitable thing to do, was to build houses, schools, and other things necessary for good human life. Thus, the "Wirtschafts Wunder" came along, and close to everyone was well off, no denying that. The people who didn't like it too much were the employers, since they had a employee demand that way higher than how many people were available. So over the following years, that was changed, indirectly to serve their purposes. The people might vote you into office, but money gets you these votes.

But in other societies, where is is not profitable to build up industries, ie. a lack of effective (paying) demand, these things didn't happen.

Now I find this idea illogical in general, that one should allow people to do whatever they want as long as they confine to the "rules of the market". If someones hordes food, to make a profit of of it, the market would say "fine, then it's going to cost more", but common sense should find this outrageous.

Good posts

What do you mean by Americans? 40% of "Americans" are third-world brown people. The plurality of European-Americans are Germans.

There are a lot of mad yuropoors in his thread. Is your daily shipment of americum late? I will see what I can do to speed it up I know your people are starving having to feed all those refugees.

What a pity this guy didn't reply to

Migrants commit around 2000 rapes each year in Germany (around 30% of all rapes). Highly unlikely someone involved with that is shitposting on Holla Forums

If you live in Western Europe your country has less autonomy and chance of revolt than most states.

The idea that Marxist ideology is related to Christian values was argued pretty effectively by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. The idea of equality is derived from equality before God. There is also the Utopian element which was necessitated by peoples losing faith in the existence of heaven. Striving together for a Communist future can replace the spiritual meaning that religion previously provided.

Women were actually historically more religious then men and more reluctant to give up Christian belief and community. I can tell you're fueled by pure incel rage tho

We can fix genetic inequality with genetic engineering. RW/pol/ makes too big of a deal over solvable shit.

Will assume American because ultimately wrong, fat, and presuming everyone knows he's American because it's the internet (which is American because Americans said so).

Capitalism will always produce extremely wealthy individuals and inequality. When individuals have so many resources they will inevitable corrupt and control the government. People rightfully are angry with the govt. but you need to consider why the government is inevitably corrupted (hint: its not human nature). Capitalism is inseparable from the crony aspect always has been, always will be. (inb4 muh anarcho capitalism, its a retarted unworkable system)

Could not a negro make a similar argument if he is above average for his race?

If this argument is to accepted than why divide things up by race at all in the first place, and not just judge individuals on their own personal merits?

It seems unlikely that any capitalist economy of market competition will not begin to pull towards state violence on behalf of business. I don't think it even needs to be stated "without violence businesses will just us psychological manipulation etc" because without a state there would almost certainly be a kind of regression into a modern feudalism. I can easily see capitalists bringing back things like company housing with restrictions on your activities, maybe even on what you can and cannot spend your money on. Maybe credits for the company store like they used to do.

Company bosses have always seemed to feel a pull towards overpowering the market, subjugating it to their vision. The market is a natural limit on power for any given executive, it's a natural enemy. Controlling as many aspects of costs and prices, production and it's standards and means etc. becomes the object of desire.

Like this Real American Hero
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lonnie_Johnson_(inventor)

I do see a lot of people say it though. It's partly through ignorance, and all the argument about the specifics of what each term means. As a newcomer to leftypol I can tell you all the confusion over terminology looks daunting to try and sort out.
This is a problem, if we drew our political spectrums next to each they'd look completely different.
That's a fair point, but under what conditions would a state have to attempt to adopt Marxism and it be a success that didn't lead to a perverted dictatorship? While fully considering human nature and the messiness of real life and politics, how could a large populous country organise worker owned means of production without the ensuing chaos ending with power grabs from malicious people?
I would've thought the state eventually acts in the interest of the wealthy/powerful at the expense of everything else. Seems to inevitably happen in empires throughout history.
And yet it is success, and it has repeatedly been the case. It is very easy to point at successful, wealthy and peaceful capitalist countries, but there are no socialist ones.
Some people point to the Soviet Union as a successful example, but it seems to me it's in a similar way to how Not Socialists point towards Hitler's Germany as a utopia. They have constructed their own unique narrative that only comes out of their own circles, and is not at all accepted in mainstream society. That alone doesn't disprove anything, but it does mean you have to let yourself be convinced by people that are obviously ideologically possessed, and so obviously do have biases and a story to push.
One of my biggest problems is how to avoid monopolisation. I don't have a good answer for it. To some extent the state may need to protect the "free market."
It doesn't need to be the best results, and you don't need ideal circumstances. I have enough of an income that I don't spend a day researching the absolute ideal new pair of shoes. I know that I can spend a lot less time and still get a very satisfactory deal while not going broke. And the shoes don't need to be absolutely perfectly designed while made as cheaply as possible, so long as they are designed well enough, and cheaply enough, to be competitive. But there is always an incentive to improve on those two fronts which is obviously positive.
Not no state I agree, but a limited one, in order to limit the power that bribing and controlling the state can give you.
I am not settled on this and it's a serious problem, but I don't think it's a problem only in capitalism. Power and wealth naturally concentrates, but it seems to have been best mitigated at least temporarily in some capitalist societies. People in the United States, regardless of class and race and gender and birth (you could argue) have very good chances at upwards mobility if they only work hard enough, at least relative to most of history.
I'm beginning to agree that a system devised ONLY for maximising profit may not be desirable. I'm coming to this conclusion for entirely different reasons than you I think though (immigration and attack on culture.)
Perhaps, but a state with the power to interfere in that instance may find itself wanting to interfere with me as well.

Inequality is natural, humans are not equal. Do you have a real-world example of a system that had no inequality?
I don't agree, can you explain why you say that?

Either read a book or neck yourself.

because humans have millions of years of tribalism deeply ingrained into their biology and voluntarily self segregate along all kinds of lines, ethnicity being one of them.
this should ultimately be the highest consideration, but it only works on the individual level (obviously.) when you're talking about large populations and are making generalisations, which are useful, large differences between races begin to become obvious and are relevant to general discussions.

Niggers are low Autism Level and subhuman. This is the truth.

...

OP is a ==NAZBOL==

It happened to me, too. Until I started studying Anthropology (the science that studies humanity), and I realized that racism has little empirical basis.

The fixation index is a form of measure used by population geneticists to calculate genetic divergence by using genetic polymorphism data. In this way, you can calculate the divergence of alleles in species or clades to determine whether they can be taxonomially cassified as belonging to a specific group or another subspecies. If the genetic divergence of human groups reached a certain threshold, we are able to classify humanity into subspecies. The matter-of-fact is that all humans are more genetically closer to each other than two populations of chimpanzees separated by the Congo River. Without a high fixation index, classification of humans into races becomes taxonomically impossible, and thus unscientific.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_index#FST_in_humans
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14655871

Another requirement for being able to scientifically classificate subspecies is to be able to group them into geographically delimited populations; this is necessary because genetic divergence within and between populations as migrational waves occur diminish the genetic distance between them, and as such an accurate classification becomes extremely difficult, and in many cases, counterproductive. There is no such correlation between the concept of "race" as usually talked about, and their geographical locations. Furthermore, genetic studies have found that the genetic difference between human populations are less diverse than within them. This means that a person living in Asia might have more in common, genetically speaking, with a person living in Finland than with other people of the same 'group'. This doesn't mean that classification isn't possible, but it's very difficult, and the usage of racial terms only diminishes the predictive capability of human genetics population studies.
isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic185351.files/RACEgen.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

Another point to make is that ethnicity =/= race. Anthropology uses classification in ethnic groups on the basis of culture, including language, traditions, religion, hierarchy, writing (if any), mythology, ancestry, rituals, et cetera. It has nothing to do with the concept of race whatsoever.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

From the evidence, gentically speaking, there is not only no evidence for the existance of "superior races", but it's not possible to separate humans into subspecies or races without undermining the value of empirical results in human genetic studies. Race is considered a social construct with little to no empirical background for a reason.

Anthropology is cool. Sadly, it is the number one science "race realists" have to ignore to keep believing what they do.

In the words of Cecil Rhodes:

"In order to save the forty million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, our colonial statesmen must acquire new lands for settling the surplus population of this country, to provide new markets… The Empire, as I have always said, is a breadbreadbread and butter question. "

Meaning that to prevent class war because of the poor englishmen and englishwomen wanting a decent life, Cecil Rhodes was going to extract wealth from african's labour and Africa's resources. And he was well aware of that.

So far the Capitalism has lifted millions from poverty, but at the expense of pauperizing and impoverishing tens to hundreds of millions.

The socialists and communists are only bold in the statement that we all can lift ourselves from material poverty into prosperity, especially if we cut off the parasites(the 1%) from their power and resources that they claim to have divine right over.