Unpopular Opinions

Unions never organized against capitalism, they just barter so the workers are more happy while exploited. Welfare and Socdem policies delays revolution.

Feminism runs counter to Marxism. If base effects super structure, racism, sexism homophobia(all superstructure), should all be ignored in favor of class struggle.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite
youtube.com/watch?v=_u8FBpqEP6Q
businessinsider.com/climate-change-may-be-irreversible-2016-9
science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming-irreversible1.htm
washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/effects-of-climate-change-irreversible-un-panel-warns-in-report/2014/11/01/2d49aeec-6142-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

bordiga is pretty good reading tbqh

Even the most rabid of leftcoms will sooner join a union than a party. Just saying.

What about these guys?

I'm starting to believe that opposing neoliberal cancer is a waste of energy and the only reason why would we do it is "buying time"(provided there is some plan) or for PR since things like international trade treaties are going to be forced down our throats sooner or later anyways due to the nature of capitalism.

I wonder who could possibly be behind this post

i know this thread isn't meant for argumentation but your issue with feminism is based on a seriously reductionist understanding of dialectical materialism. while yes, we could make the argument that the origin of these things can be located in economics, they have persisted for long enough that the economic foundation has partly been lost (or at least obscured), and taken on a life of their own, disconnected from economy.

i agree that some parts of social justice theory are counter-revolutionary, however to just 'ignore' things like racism is frankly childish. it's 'real' in the sense that the false consciousness behind the idea of racism creates real world problems. a leftist movement which only treats these things as distractions from economics, in these times, is doomed to fail. the economic relation underlying racism/sexism etc IS what should be emphasized, but to say that these issues need to be ignored is, at best, incredibly short sighted.

You were better off under western capitalism than what passed as communism back in the USSR

This is supposed to be an unpopular opinions thread.

if you worked

Unions can foster class consciousness, that's why Marx thought the socialization of work under capitalism could be positive


Depends on the country

how is all sjw theory not counter revolutionary?

But they have value in highlighting the conflicting interests between labor and capital, until they get subverted and attract union leaders who have their own interests separate from those of the workers.
Yes.

Feminism is also generally either liberal (and therefore trash) or "Marxist" and therefore misses the point of Marxism, at least from the versions of it I've seen.


It's something people do when they feel like they don't have it in their power to do anything constructive. Which largely we don't, because capitalism chokes the working class more and more. Eventually we'll hit the point where people need to violently fight back in order to survive.


Fuck off succdem. Go write a post about why hitting women is good.


How well-off someone was varied wildly. Are you talking about the average, the minimum, or what "success" looked like in that society?


Racism and sexism isn't a product of capitalism, but a product of class society. Abolishing capitalism per se doesn't stop them but abolishing class does. This post is exactly how social justice types swindle people. They play around with definitions and pedantic arguments and wrap it in feelsy rhetoric to get people emotional and distract them from the sleight of hand.

where has this let to socialism in the first world post ww2?

Unions have been corrupted but they're important for when the revolution happens because they tie the workers together, even if it doesn't solve anything before the revolution.

As for the whole feminism thing, I've gotta (slightly) disagree. Although sexism and racism are influenced by the base, changing the base will not completely get rid of them. Changing the base will definitely make racism and sexism less apparent but it's still gotta be a cultural revolution as well as an economic revolution.

See unions got co-opted by capital and similar skimming middle-men.

Everything that happened in the Soviet Union between 1917 and 1953 was inevitable and will happen again and there is nothing anarchists and leftcoms can do about it.

I'm ok with small amounts of lent private property that is subject to revocation if not used well.

...

I actually like the Platypus Affiliated Society.

I'm sympathetic towards Asserism and National Syndicalism

The left doesn't begin and end with Marx. He was smart and made a lot of valuable contributions to leftist thought but the cult like adherence to him is stupid as fuck. A bunch of what he said is outdated by now, and he was straight up wrong about the end of capitalism. He thought that capitalism would fall within 4 years of righting the manifesto. This is also somewhat of a response to OP.

*writing, sorry

I think too much emphasis on the left is placed on 18th-20th century ideas and terms. I believe some, not all, but some are definitely more relateable within their historical context. We are so far removed from the realities of that age that it's not wonder leftism as we know it has such a little foothold in the world nowadays. The average prole is never going to read or understand Marx. They're never going to have a library full of literature on materialism. The left has utterly ceded territory due to its inability to update its lingo and the way it communicates how to practically apply the change we want.

I also believe it's not just form and style, but probably content and ideas, too. We are approaching a post-work world. Blindly reminiscing about the good ol' days of unions and guilds isn't going to cut it for much longer.

National Bolshevism is unironically good

GTFO

WRONG

Traditional cultural views won't shift all that much by changes in the super structure.

On a sidenote I find it funny that this idea is the one most likely to upset the idpol crowd, even though they're arguing basically the same thing about their feminist and racial ideologies somehow being exceptions rather than the rule.

Most socialists are complete idiots, whether it's because they're pretentious attention whores or spooked as fuck. I wouldn't trust 90% of the people on this board or in the socialist movement as a whole to lead anything of any importance.

truly.
it's a special kind of disappointment every time

Is there anyone you do trust?

The socialists I know and have met IRL all seem like normal people tbh

t. spooked idiot

I believe transgender is woman hateric and a product of consumer culture's obsession with identity

Many of the Nationalist anti-immigration movements in Europe are currently, in terms of parliamentary politics, vastly preferable to any other parties even from a non-accelerationist perspective.

I could agree that this board is pretty retarded, yet it still manages to be one of better political circlejerks with more than 30 people

When the nationalist Finns Party actually won a decent number of votes they just entered a coalition with the cuckservatives sold out their base and plummeted in the next elections

Please. This board is full of Ameritards who autistically screech if an 18 year old has sex with someone who's 17 years and 364 days old. You don't have any room to be calling anyone else spooked. I'm from Finland and I don't see these people as my comrades at all. My girlfriend is 16, which is perfectly legal here, and I'll fucking shoot you if you try to take her away from me, because I know you assholes would if you got the chance. America can get fucked by the porkies as far as I'm concerned. You people don't deserve to be free of capitalist exploitation.

Which was silly since The Finns always campaigned on not going into coalitions and when they broke with that and did join up with the right-wing they didn't even bother satisfying the right-wing anti-immigration part of their party.
It's like they went out of their way to piss off all the supporters of their party at once, the working class union people, the anti-immigration wing, the anti-EU wing and the anti-Finnish Establishment wing.
Unlike many of the other parties they also seemed to pride themselves on not getting rid of incompetents.

They're really not because the reason they never get elected is because they aren't trying. All they have to do is stay in the game, become a national or EU MP and collect your check. Every now and then say something "shocking" so your base doesn't forget you exist. Tweet some picture of a nigger playing soccer of talking to the phone or whatever makes these retards mad. Go to every political tv show, everyone, and spam the same milquetoast talking points that nobody can really counter because they're 100% common sense ("The euro was a mistake, we need a border policy, we gotta fix our national problems first") and accuse anyone who rightfully calls you a racist of being a bigot. Rinse and repeat for all the years needed for you to get a parlamentary pension.

Lega Nord was actually in the government several times in italy and they never did anything but meaningless shit that got cancelled a few years later and that was useless in the first place. These people don't care. They don't want to get elected and if their shtick backfires and they do get elected they do nothing at all.

And yes the fake succdem euro-left is basically evil, doesn't mean these people are better.

Marx was accidentally an idealist and utopian on a few issues.

You really can't be anti idpol without being against nationalism, even civic nationalism is idpol. I don't know why this is controversial though.

Jim Jones did nothing wrong.

no one gives a shit about your imaginary gf

What did he mean by this

Worker co-ops and economic independence is all we can expect from the first world.

I don't either

bring back 70s euro terror chic

The one i'm talking about has always tried for government and have been under a cordon sanitaire until very recently so none of that stuff that really applies.
Their sister party and major inspiration over the border seems to have done fairly well keeping to centre-left economic policies as well.
Generally they don't have to do anything, and race-baiting like that they exclude people over, because our Bourgeoise elite is so retarded they piss off working and middle class people just by opening their mouths. We're talking on the level of sounding exactly like Holla Forums-strawmen.
Italian politics are so corrupt i'm not at all surprised. M5S seem to be aiming for the same thing.
They evidently are since they actually managed to crush the EU-spurred anti-Union law which the others couldn't. Suddenly the unions can legally take action against EU firms that circumvent union regulations through strikes and blockades again.

Bring back america funding every single one of them.
well ok, mostly the fash ones, but still.

you can take my word for that, every time they rate hight on any sort of poll they send one of their drones on tv and make him say something unbelievably stupid.

Because internationalism as applied to internal politics bring about all sorts inherently stances divisive to the point of splitting parties and effective vectors of leftism, historically the marxist Soc Dems here changed from internationalist to nationalist when the Bourgeoise's main strategy against them became bringing over Galician strikebreakers, people whose job was literally just going from workplace to workplace one at a time to strike break until the workers gave in for lack of funds.

Since it involves a chance of splitting of course Trotskyists and anarkiddies get all hot and bothered over it.

Just like nobody gives a shit about your imaginary American socialists. Socdem cucks are the best you can come up with.

by the way, it's completely true that a lot of these movements coopt leftist thought.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouvelle_Droite

Socialist girls are all obnoxious in their own way and most Holla Forums cliches about them are 100% correct.

The only leftist girls worth loving and fucking are brown hardcore tankie maoists

Stalin did everything wrong

how could any one person be more wrong?

The Soviets were better dressers than the Nazis though, that's for sure.

Rosa did nothing wrong.

Nigga even had shadow people in one of his gatherings

youtube.com/watch?v=_u8FBpqEP6Q

Yeah, Bordiga was never in a party or anything.

There's literally nothing wrong with acts of terrorism.

Mostly right, minus the extremely rare exceptions like

But yeah on the whole unions can be counterproductive unless they're radicalized.


That's the tragedy, isn't it? Very few people here actually read up on their theory and we're fucking stuffed with shills of all types, yet we're a motherfucking ivory tower compared to the rest of the internet.

Lenin fucked up hardcore by executing his revolution so early. He was so sure Europe or at least Germany would go Red that he went all in, then saw himself in charge of an isolated, ungovernable mess, forcing him to betray all his principles, setting the stage for Stalin and the ensuing disaster that communism became. The Russian people kept getting more and more radicalized throughout 1917, so stalling for time would have played in favor of the Bolsheviks anyway.

We have to be post-left. The "authentic" left is long dead.

except for the fact that at best they don't work and at worst actively set back the cause


i hate this fucking place and its retarded motherfuckers so much, and yet Holla Forums is still better than everywhere else on the internet


having seen the state the irl left is in firsthand, i'm pretty down for this. as long as it doesn't involve any anprim faggots we should be good

Globalism is way more important than any economic model.

He was strong enough to conquer Nazi Germany. Without him you would speak german.

The right-wing points about "incentives" or motivation should be addressed seriously.

cops are underappreciated
most leftists as well as liberals are lazy fucks who use "the system" as an excuse
far right humor and memes are way better than the far left stuff
shoplifting is fucking obnoxious
ignoring idpol is pointless when everybody elsse does it (as in, white nationalists make sense considering there is actually a lot of talk about killing whitey)

(i do genuinely want a socialist utopia with everyone being equal, though)

Femdom is shit.

...

They generally have been addressed seriously, it just looks like they haven't because classcucks only bring up that argument when they've exhausted all the other angles of attack, and they're at the point of the argument that they'll just ignore whole swathes of their opponents' arguments.

Their stubborn refusal to accept or respond to our points makes it look like we didn't address them properly, by that strange alchemy that transmutes who actually won a debate into who outside observers think won the debate.

This is not an opinion, but a fact.

The gays will only hold us back to disastrous results.

What about

We reward people for their labor and innovation

Problem solved. Seriously, this is just such a stupid argument.

Homosexuality and Transsexuality is entirely caused by environmental factors and is therefore merely a cultural phenomenon.

The amount of gays and transpeople will reduce itself to 10% in communism. Those who got a sex change under capitalism will probably kill themselves tho

Should we consider naming the post-left "up" or "down"?


user, gays and trannies already are about 5% of population, combined.

If the larping tankie faggots here were forced to live in eastern bloc and what it upheld as culture, they would soon start to pray Soros would fund the dissent themselves.

Same goes for the Anarkiddies and Katalonia or Free Territory.

At least the leftcoms are honest about their love for the current state of affairs so they do nothing

I agree that there are arguments against it, and that people have been stating them, as in "people want to werk and make something in their lives", but I'm not sure this has been really convincing (even though I agree). I think it's more complicated than that : most people want to do something, but they also want it to be simple on a day-to-day basis, they don't want to have to think about the entire process of what they're doing at all times. They want to come in every morning, do their job, then go home, and not have to worry about the whole organization or planning or whatever. Basically they want less responsability. And I'm not sure the left has been talking about that, I feel like what the left is suggesting tends to be more responsabilities and daily worries for most people, which is more worrying and in the end makes people less productive. IINM Zizek talks about that.

wew

shit thread tbh

...

good post, upvoted

We should not portray ourselves as radical movements. Wanting Communism is not a radical wish, when you're not blinded by propaganda. We are revolutionary, we want to change the system from bottom-up, but being radical only scares aways the people we need, and attracts those we don't.

Nice accelerationism, OP.

My unpopular (in some circles) opinions:

-being radical for the sake of being radical is idiotic, if the revolution is an excuse not to act, fuck you.
Everyone communist should be ready to engage themselves in the present, not in the hypothetical revolution tomorrow. Focusing on the revolution is fine if the time is right, but it isn't. The main opponent is the ideology that helps capitalism remain the only option. To change this, we must begin with small acts, activism, raising class consciousness (while not ignoring other, current problems), etc. Maybe then we will end up in a situation right for revolution.

The worst lefttists are those who do nothing because "nuthing helps against the main enemy".

-pragmatism to the extreme is good
When it comes to means, but not when it comes to goals. If I need to fight fascists, I'll ally myself with the liberal right: if I need to fight imperialism, I may even join the nationalists. Note: I mean imperialism and fascism in a pretty literal sense here - a lot of what passes as fascism today kinda isn't.

-anarchism is stupid
Some forms may be ok, but generally speaking, abolishing the state should not be desirable, a structure similar to the state ought to exist unless we fall back to a less technological age. Anarchism is ok if there's a semi-apocalypse first.

-demanding complete solutions (to capitalism, class society) right now is stupid
Whatever we may imagine is likely to not be possible. The real alternative can only emerge through struggle and political acts.

-we need leaders
To provide the masses the option which they can, then, choose. I don't think the collective alone can work out what they want. They need a "mediator" of kinds. This does not mean that in some issues, the masses shouldn't be given the right to direct self-determination.

-class struggle may be the most important of all, but it doesn't end there. Even if we did overthrow capitalism, we'd need plenty of work to really get rid of all forms of domination and violence based on classes (or whatever structures you want to call them). For example: racism. Capitalism really helps it a lot, by making racism to be in the self-interest of the racists, but surely we need other work than overthrowing capitalism to destroy it.


This is my opinion, as well.

by the way: I think every radical leftist should read Mao's "On Contradiction" and apply it whenever we have a question of "this struggle or that struggle?" - the question isn't as simple as some people try to make it.

Holla Forums is a board for bigots to pretend to be leftists

Is this a serious post or just pure b8? Why the fuck would you use /leftpol/ if you believe these things? You would feel much more at home on reddit.

I don't see what is wrong with left-wing civic nationalism and think it would be necessary for revolution.

Yeah, they're labor aristocracy
Feminism and Gay Rights have nothing to do with Leftism and neither do race issues. All those things are secondary to class issues. The basis for most racial supremacist and gender supremacist laws are in state sponsored capitalism. Anyone who talks about feminism and race issues and sexuality issues primarily is not a Leftist, they're a Liberal.

nah, fuck off

...

even if I put on my tank top, that is dumb as fuck

There's 0 reason it would go the same way if the revolution takes place in an already-industrialised society. A lot of the pains of that time were due to the backwardness of Russia.

How can you read what you just wrote and not think it's retarded?

lovely

cool

Nobody is doing is this, you are paranoid. Stop sucking all the oxygen out of this political movement with your hysterics.

it really looks like that though

Like, take the Zizek position instead. He is strongly against harmful idpol and whatnot but it'd be pretty hard to make him out as a bigot. The liberals do it anyway, but it takes some wrestling.

You guys genuinely look like a bunch of bigots who embrace socialism rather than conservatism for whatever reason

like tell me how is this different from the neonazi people

Because, I have eyes to see and ears to hear

because neo-nazis want women to be property/brood-mares and want to sterilize/liquidate homosexuals. I don't want either of those things

Except that he can't get anything published anymore, and is constantly lambasted as a racist transphobe. There was a thread a while back, about how Chapo Trap House (not quite liberals) had eviscerated a work of his for just this reason.

You are appealing to a moderate position that is already regarded as unacceptable.

Yeah, you just get a hard on for it.

How to fight liberals?
becoming a fucking bigot and telling every other issue except the class struggle to go fuck itself

showing all the oppressed that we fight for them, want them to join us and so on. We should do what the liberals do except better; no stupid resentment, actually look at the causes of the issues, etc.


Yes I know, I also personally have a hard time finding space in the (more or less) left-wing movements because of similar crap.
Still, the radical left's position on those issues shouldn't be decided by looking at how some of those idiots treat us.

Pretty sure this isn't true, since the start of 2016 he has put out like 5 books and plenty of articles.

Render unto the worker the things that are the worker's, and unto God the things that are God's.

What's this then faggot?

Looks like a retard responding to a retard with several retards responding.

Awesome.

So it doesn't count if it's retarded?
I guess it never counts then since it'd always be retarded.

Hyperbole for the sake of argument is not persecution.

Oh, so when you side with neonazis it's just doing an irony. Got it.

Or you could stop replying to retards, but now I've unfortunately continued the chain.

Can you tell me where in this statement you found neonazis? You seem hysteric.

Sorry. You're right. Those are totally rational things to say and in no way are they Holla Forums.

It's a fucking hyperbole, dude. No better than "fully automated gay space luxury communism".

Fascism is a lesser evil than neoliberalism and we should be open to collaborating with them against it

Hello, Amadeo.

How about instead you just kill yourself?

jesus christ kys
i'm a tranny

I've got some good theory for you. It's called the Peaceful Pill Handbook.

...

kill urself m8

what the fuck does idpol even mean at this point?

is marxism idpol because it does definitely concerns itself with the proletarian position

And such a useful presence indeed. Might've not joined at all.

read a book

read again. slowly.

kill yourself. slowly.

that's not how it works bub

Antifascism today means nothing more than fighting for the preservation of neoliberalism. You know it deep inside, but will continue to deny it because of your ideology.

fascism isn't any better though

fascism will not change society in a meaningful way or make our situation in any way better

esp since its not like "the fascism today" is actually anywhere close to getting in power: Trump, Le Pen, etc are somewhat related to the phenomena and they'll just give us neolib policies with the occasional nationalist twist, dismantling a lot of potentially good things along the way (we really need internationalism to fight climate change or ever control capital)

if we did get legit fascism, they'd fucking kill us leftists, so that wouldn't even be any better

Fascism is liberalism with spooky characteristics. Antifa are retarded but fascists aren't any better.

class is not an identity numbnuts

it is determined by socio-economic relations …just like many other "identities" in other idpol

Reminder that people who think pandering to bourgeois spectacle politics is worthwhile only care about having a personal feeling of relevance in society and share the same mentality as cult personalities.

your class only exists in your material relation to the means of production. race, gender, religion, ect, only exist in people's heads.

I think third wave feminism is the best wave of feminism

aka social or societal interaction

aka social or societal interaction (a black person is a black person because of his material relations to other people)

...

Theory is for autistic assholes

...

I'll explain one of the big differences between idpol struggles and the class struggle:

IdPol generally aims to establish a space where every identity or "class" can act freely without disrupting the others, practice or perform their identity, and so on. Thus it is not a real antagonistic struggle.

The goal of the class struggle is to either eliminate (from the proletarian perspective) or to subjugate (from the bourgeoisie perspective). This is a purely antagonistic contradiction. If the proletarian side wins, there can be no bourgeoisie, etc.

This is not to say that IdPol can't evolve into a kind of IdPol Pot, where the annihilation of the enemy identity is the aim. Like if genders are seen as the enemy, the destruction of genders may be the aim. But this is not really the mainstream position, nor is it antagonistic, really: there's no real "identity enemy" (like a class enemy), the enemy is the idea of a certain, perceived-to-be-harmful identity. Usually the enemy is, at best, the enforced universality of an identity, so even the people who want to "abolish genders" really just want to create a space where any kind of gender identity can be practised freely.

In addition to this, some IdPol (for a non-controversial example: white supremacy or nazi anti-semitism) may take an antagonistic form, aiming at oppressing people belonging to a certain identity. At a point like that, I think it is justified to prioritise the struggle against the antagonistic idpol over class struggle.

maybe they all agree you ninny

Well I can't know that it's not controversial if no one replies anyway.

Tell us which one is that

It's not a coherently formed opinion yet, but something like
"Marx was right in a system without global warming, once you factor it in capitalism will be the end stage of humanity because it will buy itself just enough time to kill everyone before revolution."
There are variations, but nearly all of them rely on a synthesis of "Marx was as right as it's possible to be, but the world is a horrible place so actually Marx was wrong and only bad things will happen."

It's essentially a consequence of my political transition from social democrat to major depressive. (Though in truth, the end-of-humanity is almost a last hold-out of hope - it's optimistic if the alternative is neoliberalism forever.)

Unironically agree.
We've seen Fascism fall already. Neoliberalism has not yet fallen.

If we replace Fascism with neoliberalism it will collapse from it's own insanity in time. The worst case scenario is that we kick off a history loop of Fascism > Keynesianism > Neoliberalism > Fascism, which is still a huge improvement on Fascism > Keynesianism > Neoliberalism > Crisis > Neoliberalism > Crisis > Neoliberalism > Crisis > Neoliberalism. with increasingly poor conditions and draconian surveillance at each stage.

However co-operation should be tacit.

(Also, could one not lazily suggest that Fascism is a good sign - since it's essentially the final effort of capital to protect it's social position?)

To control capital you really need inter-nationalism, i.e. the interaction of various nation-states in their own interests. If you treat the international community as a thing as a whole, you end up being open to free movement of capital.

Keynes' Bancor was the right idea, an actual fair system for dealing with the balance of trade between nation-states. If you're open to a more globalisation-y worldview where unbalanced trade is great and so on because it's what individuals want without regard for nations or countries, it's just neoliberalism.

Too tired to really articulate that distinction. (Because simultaneously I'm not trying to conflate internationalism without a hyphen with globalism.)

ooh, ooh!

Marx really failed to predict how capitalism can survive.

Maybe not forever, but it really doesn't matter since as we now know, the world is far from limitless

idk I think all this obsession over Marx being right or wrong are stupid: Marx was wrong on a lot of points, but right on some really crucial ones. Concentration of capital in the hands of very few being a, maybe the, major one. That alone is impressive considering the guy published his major work 150 years ago. And that alone justifies a radically leftist position, with all the crap that concentrated capital means, concentration of income as well, the crises…

I'm thinking more in terms of a high global tax on capital, regulation (also for climate, dangerous new technology…) and so on, even against the short-term interest of particular nation-states. Or an international planned or half-planned economy once possible. For that, you need to do it at a higher level than the nation-state, you need a more or less global power. Nation-states working in their own interest are a disaster also for the incoming, even more severe, refugee crises.

Well, yes, if we mean the actual old full-blown fascism. Today's fascist-like tendencies are really misguided solutions to problems caused by neoliberalism, and we don't usually have "real" fascists anywhere close to assuming power or acquiring popular support, so I'm only talking about those neo-nationalists, right wing populists and whatnot, who are often associated with the "rise of fascism today" or however to put it.

I think this pseudo-fascism or right wing populism is too dangerous: who knows how long they'll manage in putting "their nation first" and destroying our living conditions and such.

Leftcoms are technically correct in their criticisms of the Left, they just have terrible organization and politics.

I see your point here, and I definitely agree. I think the only way that communism will actually be taken up by people is if running things in a communistic fashion makes people's lives demonstrably easier. Lots of leftists don't seem to get that. I think Marx nailed it with his passage in the German Ideology:


To me that describes a very easy sort of life - when 'general production is regulated by society', there's no need to make things complicated for yourself - we know what's needed and what needs to be done to get it, and there's a clear and direct line we can draw between making stuff that's wanted and being able to freely access whatever resources we want in turn. Of course, to me that whole situation is contingent on our ability to develop the systems that allow 'society to regulate general production' in this manner, which is why I love the cybernetics thread so much


What part of FAGSLC is hyperbole? I mean maybe the gay part, homosexuality won't be mandatory or anything, but I think putting 'gay' in there is just supposed to signal that our communism won't go all 'bourgeois decadence' full tankie autist on our homorades. Maybe the 'fully automated' part? I suppose I maintain that communism is quite feasible even at our current level of automation - but fully automated isn't a bad goal, and I wouldn't call including it hyperbole. I could do without the 'luxury' part, obviously luxury is only a relevant concept under conditions of wealth/class disparity. But even then, 'luxury' is a fine shorthand for the idea that communism will enable us to freely access the means of consumption.

So yeah, where is the hyperbole? Unless you're making a sly joke about the fact that the Holla Forums cunt who immediately started talking about muh gynocracy and homo supremacy when it was suggested that Holla Forums is full of bigots wasn't actually joking.


Antifascism means keeping the fash occupied in larp battle against stupid anarkiddies so they don't go out and pull another pic related. Every stupid larpfest that happens between fash and anti-fash averts a situation where the fash go marching into an immigrant neighbourhood to harass people, which is what they do when unopposed. How do you think Spencer's little anti-jewish march stunt would have gone if nobody had turned out against him?

I wouldn't argue that anti of this antifa stuff has much bearing on the overall class struggle or anything - but it isn't the totally unproductive and terrible thing Holla Forums wants to make it out to be.


Climate change is literally only a problem for capitalism, though. A society that reins in 'anarchy in production' is quite capable of enacting the changes necessary to reverse climate change. There's no need for depression, there is a need to enable the adoption of communism (see the cybernetics thread).

i will shill shill shill for the perspective being developed in that thread until the clathrate gun goes off and we turn into venus

Art is vain and pointless effort wasted in an attempt to appeal to some sort of subconscious deity who the artist assumes will bring him physical and metaphysical wealth. At worst, the art is in glorification of a meaningless boundary in which the artists tribe resides, at best it glorifies a tangible as the artist saw it, therefore doubling as a historical record.

I'm . On a scale from Marx to the Redpanels guy, where am I placed?

Yeah, about that…

I'm sorry, did humanity suddenly forget all of the mechanisms by which CO2 and CH4 can be removed from the atmosphere? As I say, the only thing stopping us from reversing climate change is the ass-backward market-based resource allocation system we're currently lumped with.

businessinsider.com/climate-change-may-be-irreversible-2016-9

There's only so much science can do, user. No to mention that everyone forgets that those fancy green techs – or any advanced tech, for that matter – have their own environmental price. Solar panel manufacturing generates very nasty chemicals, for example.

Of course, I might be wrong and it's still possible to revert it if we have rational resource distribution. But I'm a cynic by nature and I fear we're past the point of no return.

This. Fascism is dead and will never rise again.

"History repeats itself" is undialectical liberal BULLSHIT

...

What is called "neofascism" is just the same old neoliberalism. Just look at Trump.

It exists, but it's nowhere near a credible force. It's Western-Maoist tier LARPing.

These, depending on the context it'll mean either neoliberalism w/ nationalist, racist etc tendencies or a fringe LARP group.

Not that the LARP groups aren't fucking disgusting, especially when they go all the way to real violence. But they're fringe groups. They've nothing of the sort needed for gaining real power.

And they're really, in a way, just a tiny "radical wing" of the bigger, neoliberal kinda-sorta-10%-fascist movements (Le Pens party, Trump and whatever)

I don't understand, that article agrees exactly with my point - climate change is only a problem if we don't actively remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere. And the problems with solar panel production you describe are rooted entirely in the current mode of production. Toxicity for workers is only a problem if worker health and safety is a lower priority than profitability. Similarly, the toxic components of solar panels only become a problem after disposal - it's highly doubtful we'd dispose of waste in the same incredibly harmful way if our production/resource use priorities changed.

There's that "may be irreversible" thing.

Maybe read more than the sensationalist headline?
>Unless humanity develops methods for drawing down atmospheric CO₂ on a scale required to cool the Earth to below 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperature, at the current rate of CO₂ increase of 3ppm per year we are entering dangerous uncharted climate territory.
From an technological/engineering perspective there's nothing difficult about removing atmospheric CO2, the problem is scaling it up - and that's a problem with the economic system.

You're assuming that the scaling up is lmited only by economics, but it's entirely possible it's physically impossible. Who knows?

Anyway, a couple more articles:
science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/global-warming-irreversible1.htm
washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/effects-of-climate-change-irreversible-un-panel-warns-in-report/2014/11/01/2d49aeec-6142-11e4-8b9e-2ccdac31a031_story.html

Again you seem to have just looked at the headlines. From the first article:
>Instead of it taking a couple hundred years to reverse global warming if we cut emissions right now, it looks like it could take more like a millennium.
The assumption here is that no great effort is made to actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Simply stating that natural processes like biomass and seawater capture of CO2 will be insufficient to reverse climate change is an entirely uncontroversial point.

From the second article:
>Only an unprecedented global effort to slash emissions within a relatively short time period will prevent temperatures from crossing a threshold that scientists say could trigger far more dangerous disruptions, the panel warned.
Again, the 'irreversibility' attested to in the headline is based on the assumption that we will only curb our emissions.

Look, there is nothing physically impossible about this. Climate change is due to the ~400 Gigatonnes of excess CO2 in the atmosphere. If that ~400 Gigatonnes was removed, climate change would stop happening. We need to physically remove the excess CO2 - probably not all of it, but certainly the lion's share of it - from the atmosphere. At this point, as the three articles you linked point out, simply ceasing further CO2 emissions will not stop climate change from having a bad effect on civilisation. However, I suggested that it would.

Climate change absolutely can be reversed if we remove that excess CO2. Every article you've linked agrees with that statement. Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is not, in principle, an impossible task. I don't know why you keep fighting me on this.

never* suggested that it would

>We need to physically remove the excess CO2
I know a guy who could be of some help with that, for a reasonable fee.
He uses only the purest of ideology. [tm] So you know it's good stuff, so to speak.

Oh good, I thought that bit would be too subtle

fuck, why do so many people seem to unironically think this? just don't support either you cuckolds, no one's forcing you to

This is kinda why we need revolution TBH, or at the very least a Berniecrat that at least does this and give humanity a couple hundred more years of survival.

Because the two could come into conflict in future if anti-globalisation/anti-immigrant sentiment takes hold. Domestic capital versus international capital as a factional battle.

Your abstention will win you no friends.

The same reason the Soviet Union collaborated with liberal democracies to stop German imperialism. American imperialism is today the number one threat and it would be wise to ally with everyone that opposes it.

greenies are the coolest leftists, by far

Traps are gay and Idpol

FFS, kill yourself

t. retarded idealist