What's with the Right's obsession with autistically finding, identifying and cataloging people who disagree with them?

What's with the Right's obsession with autistically finding, identifying and cataloging people who disagree with them?

Other urls found in this thread:

8ch.net/pol/res/10068764.html#q10118407
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialectic_of_Sex
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_School
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism#Wilhelm_Reich
youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Fuerst, John. "The nature of race." Open Behavioral Genetics, June, 2015.pdf
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608009001071?via=ihub.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/04/blacks-and-whites-with-equal-educational-attainment-differ-in-cognitive-ability/.
nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf.
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/malnutrition-and-national-iq-differences/,
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-intelligence-and-nutrition/.
peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf
unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/
nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf.'?
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/
thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/news/black-students-miss-out-on-oxbridge-(1)/
theguardian.com/education/abby-and-libby-blog/2013/dec/04/black-students-absence-diminishes-oxbridge
askthepast.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/how-to-play-with-cat-1658.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Wicherts_et_al_on_African_I.Q.s.2C_Lynn_Thesis
sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm
iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf
nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/
thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/08/23/racism-and-iq/
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691630410X.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235210/
youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8clPrg7kc.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934316306003,
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028141.
theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books).
labtimes.org/labtimes/issues/lt2008/lt06/lt_2008_06_3_3.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because the Left come at them with mounds of evidence; history, science, economics, psychology, sociology… all of them pointing against them.

Lacking any normal human thought process, they see this mound of evidence and believe it is the sheer size of the information against them which is persuasive, rather than its content (after all, they're Right! How could they be wrong?). They therefore set about grabbing whatever scraps of napkin bits and shiny objects and, in a cargo cult imitation of what the left does, they dump their garbage until it constitutes a mound, dance around it and try to use the display to seduce.

They're birds. They have the brains of birds, is what I'm saying.

we should send them info on right wingers.
Then watch them fuck themselves

Or just random students and then watch as they end up getting sued into oblivion.

For one, liberals false-flag as left and we get held responsible for their idpol neoliberalism. For another, that Frank Furtschool guy really gave the Birchers some facile ammo.

if you can't win the argument attack the person delivering the argument.

They're hypocrites. Not only do claim we're not analytical or objective but then they say shit like we like the ability to be. And then like the complete autist they are, they try to root us out and point fingers in some bizarre shaming ritual.

To answer your question, OP their dumb as hell and they haven't realized it's been a good couple of decades since the 1960s.

This looks no different than radlib kids doing the same for "racists", "misogynists", "transphobes" etc. so they can cry to authority and have them fired or expelled or the other usual shit they do.

tbh this is not something unique to the right, this is the modern right consciously adopting the tactics and language of what most people consider "the left", like they've done throughout the 20th century.

Go to them yourself, look them straight in the eye, tell them you're a communist and demand money.

Doesn't the left do the exact same thing with White Nationalists? I don't see the point in bitching

Because that's just what racist, sexist, islamophobic, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, woman hateric, neoliberal, fascist, crypto-fascist, reactionary, imperialist, bigoted, racist, capitalist lackeys do.

Not really, unless you count SJWs for some reason. The right have always been more autistic on this front, they had redwatch here in the UK.

libkids don't have the balls to actually harm anything that isn't a trash can
WNs are overly volatile because of the constant flow of cheap drugs fucking with their hormones

They never do anything. Knew several people on redwatch and it was a total meme, people would always joke about it. Something like that generates no fear unless you act on the people on the list.

look mom, I did it!.

they think one day their shitlist will mean somebody gets The Knock at the Door for disagreeing with them on a sri lankan datamining basketweaving site


what did birds ever do to you? There are some parrots and corvids I've seen that are smarter than a slightly subaverage Holla Forumsyp

You're right. Left-wing people, especially SJWs, definitely didn't pioneer that tactic into the 21st century. There aren't entire sites and communities which are literally mainstream (enough for normalfags to know about) committed to the purpose of doxxing and "outing" people who disagree with them so they can show how horrible they are for believing the wrong thing.

Taking one tiny example of the right-wing doing what left-wingers do on a much larger basis doesn't make any kind of valid point, and you being this stupid doesn't make a point in the right's favor either. Please understand that regardless of your personal politics, I'm making the case that you're being a hypocrite and ignoring reality to try to make a blanket statement with the most minute possible datum as evidence. If there's anything to be learned here it's that trying to categorize millions of people via cherry-picking makes you look like a retard and doesn't accomplish anything. A rational dialogue between people of differing opinions requires someone to initiate it, not just keep the cycle going.

P.S.: It's not fair to categorize Communists, Marxists, and racists as merely people of differing opinions. They are by any definition radicals, and while I don't think that's inherently a bad thing it means they should not be described as if they are part of the tiny centrist spectrum which is considered mainstream and to which nearly all Westerners belong, regardless of recent dissonance which has slightly distanced the two "extremes" of that spectrum.

Nice qualifier nigger. Try writing that again without your radical liberals thrown in.

don't talk shit about birds you fucking nigger

Ironically these same people will complain about SJW smear tactics and career ruination. So much for the easy going right.

You have no idea what left wing means, do you?


Oh, you mean post-fukuyamaist, end of history, central right!

No, that's only burgers that's don't want to see any problem with the system.

because they imagine that the only thing holding us back from a perfect society is a couple of jewish/cultural marxist conspirators. They believe if they kept close tabs on these wreckers then they'd be able to explain more or less everything wrong with society. By concentrating all of the problems they see in society into a small minority they can imagine that their perfect society actually exists they can imagine that their perfect society exists in the remainder.
Another example of this is their obsession with cucking. even if we kicked out all the black people in this country, I have a hard time believing that most of these people would be able to get laid.

So they can gulag them after they take power.

They probably just want to reward them for exercising their free speech, right?

What's with this board's obsession with autistically finding, identifying and cataloging irrelevant aut-right retards on social media?
Every second thread is "alt-right cringe" or similar cancer.

How dare you say that, you know my mother was a bird.

Nobody is cataloging shit, we just post pictures of autism to laugh at it.

Except we're not doing that, you mong.

Hahaha, stay mad pol. I love threads like this where poltards can't pretend to hide larping as one of us anymore and get completely unmasked.

Geez
This, but unironically. It was used by McCarthy before them, and indubitably by others before him.

Huh. You know the right says exactly the same thing about left.

Calling someone a bigot and a racist is none of those things.

Black Bloc tactics for the win!

Economic liberals sat on the left side in parliament in revolutionary France. that is what left wing means.

the right thrives on witch hunts, every fascist country had proscription lists. really not surprising that the sjws act like that all the time.

Ok comrade.

this episode never ends

I don't understand why Socialists insist on usurping a label that is meaningless outside of the bourgie state since Socialism is supposed to be stateless.

we like usurping things

nice meme
But I agree with what you're saying, and we think these currents pollute genuinely revolutionary politics for exactly that reason.

Yeah but why usurp spooks? Why this fanatical tribal loyalty to a political label that does include a wide range of people who aren't Socialists at all? And you cannot say they aren't left since it has never been only used to refer to Socialists.

see

it's a fucking word, it's useful to identify things. if you went around calling chairs "watermelons" and some guy asked you wtf you are on about would he be an usurper fanatic or some guy who is confused about someone else sperging?

Yes and it identifies a lot of different politics not just Socialists. Claiming that it only refers to Socialists is disingenuous.

yeah it's also for anarchists and a lot of different sects. sjws are centrists at the very best.

You just said it- they're autistic. Especially Jin Saotome, a 40-something action figure collector closet brony with no job.

No they are radical leftists.

no no they're terrorists

This blew up on Twitter before it was posted here. That was yesterday. The University staff pulled it down anyways.

Before they did these people were spammed to high hell. Everything you can think of.

No they are leftists. Terror is a tactic that can be used by anyone.

jesus christ my formatting

Because there's an absolutely profound tendency for the human mind to mistake our ideas of things for the things themselves, and to construct our notions of the latter on the largely undisciplined manipulation of the former, and this is a key tool in the anticommunist arsenal.
Look at how fervently Holla Forums will try to align intersectionality and related postmodern currents with Marxism, when they are in the most basic sense negations of one another. Clearly, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of this form at work, centering on fuzzy ideas of "progressivism, but more so," and clearly this misunderstanding reinforces class rule. One of the ways thinkers get around this problem is with objective, prescriptive, technical definitions for the things they consider. The actual label itself doesn't matter much. What matters is consistent use of definitions, and usually we expect people to learn the technical vocabulary of a field they want to engage with, rather than proceed on an impressionistic, ad hoc basis or invent their own special snowflake ones. Enough said.

Look at how fervently Holla Forums will try to align intersectionality and related postmodern currents with Marxism
Marxism =/= leftism.

So you are saying leftism cannot be a part of the political process of the bourgeois state? This is clearly not true since it has always been a part of the political process of the bourgeois state since the French revolution.

Like this definition: Left-wing politics supports social equality and egalitarianism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequality.[1][2][3][page needed][4] It typically involves a concern for those in society whom its adherents perceive as disadvantaged relative to others (prioritarianism) And this one: Prioritarianism or the priority view[1] is a view within ethics and political philosophy that holds that the goodness of an outcome is a function of overall well-being across all individuals with extra weight given to worse-off individuals. Prioritarianism thus resembles utilitarianism. Indeed, like utilitarianism, prioritarianism is a form of aggregative consequentialism; however, it differs from utilitarianism in that it does not rank outcomes solely on the basis of overall well-being

no no they're terrorists i tell you. however "terrorist" here means another thing, but that's not a problem, you're not some fanatical usurper, are you?

I am not denying anyone the use of the term because my ego cannot reconcile that I might be lumped in with them. Besides I have not committed any acts of terror and as such am not a terrorist.

I'm not assuming or implying that, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
No, I'm explaining the fallacy central to essentially all right-wing thinking about anti-capitalism
If you define leftism as whatever the bourgeois state says it is, then yes, it's a part of the bourgeois state. Neoliberal democrats and all who think exploitation is justifiable so long as we have a "socially diverse" exploiting class are now "leftists." Give yourself a pat on the back.
It's both subjective and descriptive. It asks what you think you advocate, and not what you actually advocate. Certainly Holla Forums would rightly agree that SJWs don't push for equality in fact, and that "equality" itself is a fuzzy idealistic notion that means nothing objectively and can come to mean essentially opposite things depending on how it is differently interpreted at different times. Neoliberals could argue that their dream of an integrated, one world market and unified bourgeoisie is "egalitarian" in some sense because it erases some of the distinctions between things. Even some ancaps believe that destroying the state and freeing markets from regulation is a precondition to any genuine "equality," with any handed down by governments a mere farce.
Wikipedia uses a descriptive definition here because the article is a descriptive survey of different currents which have been described as "left-wing."

Honestly, a better one has to do with a belief that "the system doesn't work," and that this is an inherent property of "the system" itself which results from its basic logic and foundational assumptions, rather than a property of some unnatural corrupting influence imposed over a basically and fundamentally working system (which we would instead call "right wing" views.) Centrists believe "the system does work," and that the political project is just a matter of fine-tuning its operation in one way or the other towards various objectives, with some people prioritizing certain ones over others.
For example, social democrats are the "furthest left" (your definition) type of centrist (this definition,) but you can also see that their embrace of "big government" to solve individual economic problems is more qualitatively in line with the ethos of the left (this definition) as is the libertarians/classical liberals' laissez-faire views and skepticism of government intervention over market forces more in line with that of the right (this definition.) The full continuum of centrist views can be similarly established. in analogy to the "classical political spectrum," so in a sense this definition subsumes the other one

Not all leftists are Marxists.

Why did you delete your post user?

For one, liberals false-flag as left and we get held responsible for their idpol neoliberalism. For another, that Frank Furtschool guy really gave the Birchers some facile ammo.

Socialist ≠ Communist. Only Communism and Anarchism are stateless. Only in Marxist eschatology is Socialism a transitional state.


Wikipedia's editorial tone is neoliberal, i.e. moderate. They're the perpetrators and beneficiaries of this very confusion. You're being lame.

I fucked the italics formatting by putting a , in the middle of a ''
Corrected it and reposted here before your response

Holla Forums told me that the terms Socialism and Communism were used interchangeably. In that case I meant Communism.

The terms: "the left" "leftism" "leftists" do not exclusively belong to Communists.

p.s. please link me to the one and only proper dictionary definition on what constitutes the political left.

Here they obviously do, what aren't you getting.

Oh so only on here they do. Ok, I get it. Meanwhile it means something else to everyone else out there in the real world.

That definition seems to be overly americanized. Pretty much everywhere else in the world liberal = classical liberal

No, I mean in Marxist circles they do. We do not have the same exact fucking ideology as Hillary Clinton despite both of us calling ourselves leftists.

To us she's a fucker, I think you would agree, and to her we're fuckers.

We tend to have different definitions because one of us supports Capitalism and one of us wants it destroyed.

There isn't much not to get, it's contextual.

Yes the left wing in French revolutionary parliament was classical liberal, well it wasn't called classical back then but you get what I mean :^)


Oh only in Marxist circles you say. Ok, I understand. Meanwhile in the real world…

This is the real world. Nothing is an echo chamber everywhere. I explained an answer to your question and answered with a non answer.

I can't tell what you're trying to imply. That Marxists are like Clinton? That the distinction between capitalist and communist just doesn't exist?

Fucking explain this please, you're getting frustrating

If the terms are referring to socialism/communism the ideology, yes, there's no technical distinction shared among the whole left, but some individuals may conceivably make their own arbitrary distinctions between the two.
If they're referring to historical conditions, no. We generally mean socialism the society model as the "lower phase" of communism the society model, where money, private property, and the state have not yet become obsolete but the workers control the means of production. But it's worth noting this isn't a convention that started with Marx himself.

When authoritarian corporatist ethnonationalists of various sorts want to call themselves "fascists," or when they object to the indiscriminate use of "fascist" to mean "person who disagrees with me" or "any views I find racist," do they, too, need this mythical "one and only correct political dictionary"?
When we use "fascist" indiscriminately, the word is meaningless. We cannot construct a meaningful critique of "fascism" or even honestly evaluate it when we assign "fascism" a new poorly-defined, arbitrary, ad hoc meaning every time we use it. This is why the liberals who do that come off as silly, unhinged dogmatists, and why people really shouldn't do it.


spot the fallacy

Who knows?

What I am saying is that leftism contains a variety of ideologies and does not belong exclusively as a definition of Marxism or Communism. I mean if it did then why call it Marxism or Communism in the first place?


I was talking about Socialist, Communist politics since the left, leftism etc is a political term.

There's such a distinction between the capitalist and Clinton-esque left that it would be easier to classify Clinton and people like her within the government as center right because that's what their policy reflects.

Which is to say, that the sizable gulf between communist and capitalist within the left is something that makes Marxists distinguish themselves as the actual left, since it fights for the principles of the left where the Capitalist does not.

Why does antifa support pro-porky immigration?

"Actual" is a little misleading. It's more about how communists, (non-American) anarchists and "hard" socialists lack any ideological relation to any right wing cliques, but left-of-center groups like succdems share a connection but lack the same goals or motivations; for example, succdems see capitalism as a necessary evil while right-of-center liberals tend to genuinely approve of it, so the former is much more supportive of safety net programs.

Hold up, forgot about this.
If you're defining "left wing" to necessarily mean the "leftmost" sections of the current ruling class, whatever those may be, then what are communists? Since they fall outside of "the system," can you even assign them a spot on the spectrum with this logic?


Because marxism and anti-capitalist theory are not synonymous. You have anarchists, mutualists, market socialists, communalists, stalinists (who break from marx on key issues,) and so on. Leftypol itself is a big tent for a lot of different and opposing currents which pretty much just agree on "abolish capitalism" and "idpol is bad," take a look around.
The most significant qualitative split we can conceive of between any ideologies is whether they believe "basically, the system works" or not, as I've said here The gulf between clinton and trump is smaller than the gulf between us and clinton.
That's why it's prudent and reasonable to define "left" vs "non-left" first in terms of this split. "left" is made as meaningless a term as the colloquial use of "fascist" when it's made to encompass both clinton and marx, who could not possibly be more different.

FUCK

8ch.net/pol/res/10068764.html#q10118407

"Antifa" is not an organization.

IWW supports immigration because they are anarchists, they are against states which includes disregarding borders.

Controlled opposition, full stop.

Correct. That is one of the reasons she lost the election, she and the Donkeys pandered to the liberal left while not really being on the left. The same with Angela Merkel, the heroine of American liberals, who just came out against gay marriage in Germany.


Why not just call yourselves Marxists and Communists instead of lumping yourselves in with people you detest? You can scream and yell about being "the real" left all you want. It won't change anything.


And what are those principles?


That is a good question isn't it, since left wing has from the very inception of the term been a political term within the bounds of the bourgeois state.
If they participate in the politics of the bourgeois state then yes.

I know Holla Forums, been lurking, shitposting and occasionally having or observing a good conversation or thread since the board was founded. It was more of a rhetorical question anyway.

You claim to be a prinicipled leftist, but you disagree with Liberalism™ on some issues. Checkmate.

So you have proven Marxists aren't leftists. Truly a rhetorical genius

Not real Marxists I guess.

Leftism is a spook.

What a dizzying intellect!

Ok.

I guess it doesn't exist.

well? I'm waiting for you to post some.

When has that ever happened? You can post all the grainy jpgs you like here.

>when you don't need evidence the jews are responsible for every last complaint you have about society, because the jews themselves have buried or destroyed it all

Okay. I haven't been banned in a while so here we go. have a nice day.


I will be banned for this. Happens any time you say something politically incorrect here. That's fine I respect that Holla Forums is what it is.

Personally I dislike liberal Whites far more than Jews. Without traitors enemies are powerless.

Do you seriously think we haven't heard it before?

You don't get banned for dissenting views (though our moderation has completely gone to shit lately). The reason you get banned is because spamming is not discussion.

I've never seen it happen. The mods must be letting nazis argue their points for hours, then banning them just before their victory.

this doesn't make sense at all. the right doesn't have that. especially not the white nationalist right.

I don't believe that and I don't think you do either. I'll posit some discussion points.

1. Dialectical Materialism is flawed. Dialectics are a poor way of ascertaining truth because it can construct ideas without concern for evidence or internal contradiction. The materialism component is also flawed because people care about other things.

2. Frankfurt School. This school of Marxism escaped the trap of Dialectical Materialism and thereby helped create idpol. What's the problem with acknowledging that.

3. Equality. Does anyone really believe that shit? Seriously. I'll be honest that I don't believe in any sort of equality. Not between individuals, classes, nations, sexes, or races.

You probably aren't interested in discussing these points. I'm okay with that. It's fine I've been banned from Holla Forums before and I don't really mind.

...

War is seldom about nationalism and more about resources and each countries' respective governments desire for increased hegemony. It is sold to the common people as "muh glory to the fatherland" under threat of fine, imprisonment, or death to get them to fight. Propaganda about "the enemy" is also a huge factor.

it's a good thing communism has nothing to do with equality then.

How did they?

WWI was the worst event in human history. I certainly believe that a lot of atrocity propaganda was used by the allies, sound familiar, but I reject the notion that patriotism was a neglible factor.


So do they just kill landowners for fun then?


By utilizing Hegelian dialectics and Freudian psychoanalysis to create cultural conflict. Classical Marxism has the proletariat as the thesis, the ruling class as the antithesis, and a classless society as the synthesis. IdPol works like so: with Feminism women are the thesis, men are the antithesis, the goal being a genderless society/synthesis with anyone opposing this being a woman hater (Freud). Racial conflict, LGBT, religious conflict, all utilitize this framework.

Oy vey, you're really frying my bacon now, goyim! It's like I'm really reading Marx!
Somebody shut this down!

killing landowners is super fun but that's not my point.
Even if you accept every right wing argument about black people/women/jews being naturally inferior that would still not be an argument against communism because a person's liberation from capital isn't dependent on how intelligent or "worthy" they supposedly are.

Lumpenproles are a Marxist concept for the Proletariat that is too unenlightened to recognize the wonders of Marxism. Don't worry though I'll be banned soon. Relax.

When did they do that?

This is from the Frankfurt school? Which author? Which book?

And plenty of leftists, most notably anarchists like Bakunin and later Marxists like Franz Fanon, disagreed with the idea that lumpenproles are inherently incapable of class consciousness.
It's almost like you have you idea what you're talking about.

1. Define those terms.

2. The Frankfurt School does not teach this.

3. This is a strawman of "equality." Equality =/= EGGAXTCLY TEH SAME GUISE

It's really more about how heirarchies are inevitable things. If groups are inherently unequal or inferior as you like to put it then heirarchies will emerge with that substratum.

Pic related.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dialectic_of_Sex


Some Marxists disagree with the concept. Good for them.


1. See the image "C*mmunism Doesn't Work" for a defintion of those terms. Redefining words is an important part of any ideology.

2. Sure thing bud.

3. I don't know what you're trying to say here.

This is because M-Ls are retarded and tried synthesizing two unrelated concepts into one bizarre chimera. Dialectical idealism and historical materialism do not concern the same things.
You will find that tankies are rarely concerned with the finer aspects of authoritarian leftism and only want to relive the glory days of real world power.

Because no one on the right knows what the Frankfurt School is, which is because of a propaganda campaign by American paleoconservatives that think literally everything is a conspiracy against them. It's literally a conspiracy theory, in the NWO FEMA chemtrails sense. For some perspective, these people support summary execution as a go-to punishment for crime and want America to be a Protestant theocracy.
If you actually read their books, you'll find that they're nearly the opposite of what Holla Forums says they are. Adorno was basically a social conservative that didn't want culture destroyed by capitalism. What you think is "Cultural Marxism" is literally anti-Marxist thinking made up by what are now called post-structuralists–their philosophy is founded on the supposed failure of "old" leftist thinking at a basic level, a rejection of the "modernism" of Marxism and materialism.

In a literal sense, no. It's irrelevant to most left wing theory. Marx himself touched on this, as have many other leftist thinkers.
Besides, Holla Forums does believe in magical equality, in terms of race. They're simply creationists that think every race had its own God.

crtl-f 'frankfurt'
No hits.

hierarchies are the result of material conditions in the economy not biological differences.
I guarantee you haven't actually read that book especially since it has nothing to do with the frankfurt school.

More like "too unenlightened to become class-conscious in any real sense, due specifically to their being divorced from the social process of production by virtue of being career criminals, beggars, vagabonds,and other degenerates." It's not a term for proles who happen to disagree with him, for christ's sake.
Also

Cultural Marxism is very much a rejection of Marxism because it created a new goal of destroying the substrata that prevented Marxism. I think you're understanding of Holla Forums could use some work, but thanks for engaging me honestly.


So her association with William Reich is of no concern then? Cool.


Biological differences can cause material differences. Take for example differences in size and intelligence, even without considering race or sex, these can matter.


Interesting take.

Reich was part of the Frankfurt school?
Reich wanted to abolish gender?

explain how one group of people having a lower average Autism Level would lead to structural inequality by itself when communism is by definition a post-scarcity economy.

Wilhelm, mate
Probably not, but could you speak more to that? We'd really just rather you give examples from his own work, though, since that's what we're discussing.
What do you mean?


Yes
I don't think so, but reichian sex-pol is still counterrevolutionary tripe

No, the BO said that white supremacy is okay, just as long as you don't support imperialism.

I think there is an unspoken fallacy underlying your argument: communists are authoritarians that want to control what people think, so they must all agree with any ideas that are even vaguely indirectly inspired by classic leftist literature. Whatever relation this book has to our general viewpoints is tangential at best; psychoanalysis is mostly a dead meme.


Not really. Post-structuralists reject the assumptions and bases of Marxism entirely; they do not want what communists, socialists or anarchists want, because they disagree on what is wrong with society. They think our ideal society would not be an improvement because various boogeymen like "heteronormativity" and "cultural imperialism" would still exist.
In reality, most of them are right-of-center and only consider themselves "leftists" because they don't give a shit about economics at all. Philosophically they share many of the same assumptions as conservatives.

In regards to that third image.

Proofs. And proofs of her connection to Reich.

So she was connected to him in some way, which is damning, but he wanted something totally different?
How did her book lead to greater divisions than previous feminist theory? Are you sure you aren't just calling all critique 'Frankfurt school' and claiming that society would be totally harmonious if it wasn't for that critique?

In The Dialectic of Sex, Firestone synthesized the ideas of Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Simone de Beauvoir into a radical feminist theory of politics.[15] Firestone also acknowledged the influence of Lincoln H. and Alice T. Day's Too Many Americans (1964) and the 1968 best-seller The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich. It became a classic text in second-wave feminism in the United States.

Reich was part of The New School in NYC made of up former members of the Institute of Social Research who fled Frankfurt so yes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_School
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudo-Marxism#Wilhelm_Reich
He mainly wrote a critique of sexual repression. He did teach a lot of Marxist based sex education during the 1930s. His ideas were explored by Firestone.


Word filters are magic aren't they. Autism level (Eye-cue) would influence ones ability to perform pattern recognition. Ergo better pattern recognition at business would help you create more profitable businesses, manage them better, etc.


As for Mr. Reich I've covered that above. I believe your explanation of the Lumpenprole was interesting.


Imperialism + Liberalism = Current Mess so yeah it didn't really pan out.


I don't say that all Communists are Feminists, just that Feminism descended intellectually from Marxism.

I actually agree that they have the same view as conservatives, but mostly because I think conservatism has been an abject failure at conserving anything. Most American conservatives are inheritors of Trotsky so it would figure that they would be.


Ad hominem to the source isn't really counterevidence.

[citation needed]

Going off to do porky stuff. You guys have a good night.

see

Going off to do porky stuff. You guys have a good night.

They can't tell the difference between liberals and actual lefties,

That's not proof of feminism descending from Marx.
What? Before your ban?

Being a racist and bigot would make it difficult for them to accept new information that challenges their world views because their ideology is based on emotions.

Decide for yourself.

youtube.com/watch?v=i9FGHtfnYWY

Anglo new fag

Once we're all doxed, they'll be forced to actually do something about us.

Or not.

Provide evidence, history, science, economics, psychology and sociology that I am a bigot and a racist and quite possibly literally Hitler.

What part of the lobster economy determines a lobsters place in the lobster dominance hierarchy?

lobsters aren't people you retard.

No but they share the same chemical processes for determining dominance hierarchies with humans.

Rent-seeking.

I thought the support comes form the angle of immigrants being fellow workers.

What does lobsters boxing each other until one yields and then remembers that he lost and so will yield without a fight in future encounters have to do with rent seeking?

We were talking about the "lobster economy," were we not?

Human Beings, unlike lobsters, developed more egalitarian social structures as an evolutionary strategy to survive. Nature proves that more equality is both inherent in human history and necessary for survival.

I didn't say you were.

We still have dominance hierarchies, the only difference is humans have more complex hierarchies because we are more complex creatures.

This would mean that Zizek, and any other marxist that does not reject everything that isn't explicitly stated by marx, is an anti-marxist.

You asserted that anyone being called a bigot and racist must indeed be a bigot and a racist. why else would anyone call them that. It is not like retarded liberals don't do this when they have no rebuttals to arguments or hear opinions they disagree with.

No, it wouldn't.


>>>/out/

Yes it would since post-structuralism is present in all recent notable marxists except maybe althusser.

What "dominance hierarchies" are you referring to exactly? Because historically no, hierarchical relationships between humans developed under specific circumstances and those circumstances aren't relevant to the modern world.
Nevermind that your falling for the naturalistic fallacy hard right

All competition results in hierarchy whether you believe it does or not. And serotonin is not a fallacy. I fucking hate you social constructionist and your blank slate nonsense.

I'm not advocating for tabula rasa at all here.
And competition is not how humans evolved. Read the fucking bread book.

An interesting perspective.
Gee, I wonder why adventurist heterodoxy and outright anti-marxism are so prevalent among the bourgeois academy 's "notable marxists." We may never know.


Yes, I'm sure arthropods and primates determine social organization with the exact same mechanism. Truly, yours is the scientific view. No actual studying required.


Not all hierarchy is necessarily the product of competition. See, you're right about "some people naturally tend to become dominant in social situations moreso than others in the same circumstances" but you than take that, fudge it with fuzzy thinking, and act as though you've "proved" that private ownership of the means of production is biologically impossible to abolish, never mind how a democratically organized society of workers shares a common interest not to have their labor exploited by absentee owners. He asked you what hierarchies you're referring to, because different ones have different natures and properties. You can't carbon copy an argument about the "I'm better at math than Jake" hierarchy onto all hierarchy, such as "I will kill you if you don't give me half of your crops, and "the law" is with me" hierarchy.
No, serotonin is a chemical. A kind of physical object, not a bad argument. It's the naturalistic fallacy that's a fallacy.
Learn what historical materialism is lmfao because it kind of obviously precludes both unless you're an idiot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

This is the consequence of the view that marxists who are influenced by post-structuralists in their marxism are not marxists at all.


We might know that the author is dead and that his works are worked upon by others, that ideology isn't merely the fandom of the author and that his word isn't canon, that its dichotomies, mechanisms and lines of thinking might transcend him. Knowing that, we might say that marx's writing on the asiatic mode of production were a product of his limited knowledge and that his disliking of homosexuals does not make homosexual emancipation outright anti-marxist.

Remember when rationals attacked evil sjws for doxing?

The 0th law of Politics: It is ok when we do it.

Maybe their whole "death squad/helicopter ride/dotr"-shtick is serious in their minds. Who knows, after the next crisis hits it might well get serious.
Always be careful about your personal info.

Liberals want only to rearrange hierarchies (social and economic), Leftists want to abolish hierarchies altogether (whether it be social, economic or both, but wanting to abolish economic hierarchies is what mostly brings Leftism together)

All propaganda. It'll say what our rulers want it to say. Fakery and cronyism across the board. All puppets of the occultists. We live on the stage. They exploit us from the backstage.

How much of my wealth do you think you deserve?
To leeway off of that, can you point me to a successful Communist regime that has lasted throughout history? A stateless system without currency, where there is no profit derived from labour and everybody works as is predicted by Marx?

What is it with anticoms being a bunch of frothing-at-the-mouth niggers that act like they're getting personally antagonized?

We don't want your shitty prius or your testosterone cream cans. We want to democratic ownership and control over the means of production (farms, factories, mines, etc) and the workplace.

Can you point me to a nation that has successfully exterminated the world jewry? lol

You decide to respond to my question… by "insult insult insult you are a nigger". Not an argument.
I am personally antagonized because operating under a Communist system means the destruction of small business and all illegitimate wealth/profit… despite the fact that Communists cannot justify the ownership rights of what they claim is illegitimate. That is why the revolution always fails, and the systems always collapse: because there is no evidence to back up the claims. Profit is not theft unless you prove it to be so, and when you advocate for the abolition of profit, that extends to business owners. If you own a business, you are public enemy number one because "woe is me for hiring employees".

The thing is, that can never be the case. Like I said, how much of my wealth do you think you deserve? Why should it be democratic if you don't have any say in it because you don't own it? You cannot justify your ownership without resorting to aggression. Let me be the first to say that the small business owners and the masses will not side with the impoverished working class, as is evident with the current progress of the "worker's revolution".
If you are just a homeless guy, you don't automatically get a say in something you have put no effort into creating/managing. You don't magically become a shareholder without effort.

Pretty sure you're

Yeah, I decided to stop by again. I enjoy debating people who have differing opinions, even though your mods, open to dialogue as they may be, have banned me for two years.
I'll ask you: how much of my wealth do you think you deserve? Pretty simple question. 30%? 70%? All of it? None of it? Why/why not?

Are you a billionaire? I don't think u have anything to worry about. But the idea isn't that we think we're "entitled" to anybody's wealth. Want we want is that he destruction of a system of hat allows some to sit back and make money off other people's work, simple becaus they are rich and bought share of a company or sit on a board of directors: we think the people who actually do the work deserve the profit.

Fuck mobile posting autocorrect ruined my post

I am not a billionaire. I am actually relatively middle-class, maybe on the lower end.

I noticed that, I'll interpret it and write out what I think you meant.
"Want we want is that [the] destruction of a system of [that] allows some to sit back and make money off other people's work, simple [because] they are rich and bought [shares] of a company or sit on a board of directors: we think the people who actually do the work deserve the profit."
Correct me if I interpreted any of that wrong. I am writing my point off of that.

I also don't think it is that fair that, say, a shareholder gets bank off of just buying stuff. I have never owned stocks myself. However, it isn't as one-dimensional as you make it. It isn't "purchase stocks online, see money in your account". When you purchase a stock, you are, in a way, purchasing the company. Just a really tiny portion of it. So if the company does well, you do well. I think your main issue is with ownership, of management OF said company. I say this because the extension of stocks is… being a manager of said company. If I buy a tenth of one percent of stocks, I have little say and can't be categorized as a manager. But if we inflate that to a larger share of stocks, then I'm a chairman of the company.

So when I assume an ownership role of said company, I have purchased risk. My stock is not guaranteed to skyrocket: it just might do that, though. Does this mean that the risk should be diversified among the masses, even when it fails? Even if the masses have no hand in the issue? So, let's say I purchase ten thousand shares of Apple. Then Apple tanks. Why should you cover for my mistakes? I am the one who made a bad decision, so I fail. Likewise, if it succeeds, why should you benefit? The success/failure isn't rooted simply in 'purchase shares, business does good/bad, happy/sad now'. The business itself has to operate in a way that reflects accurately on the market value of the shares. Basically, if it does "well", then the stock value increases. If some bad news comes out, then it plummets.

Basically, this is kind of an evolution away from the archaic "you must till the fields to earn a living" mindset. People can and do have managerial roles, and there is nothing wrong with that because that is a risk they have assumed. Less of a risk (assuming you live in the West) than with an employee, because many (not all, but many) jobs do have a safety net in case you lose your job or get hurt. Depends on your education level and how valuable you are, really.

To add onto this, even IF I believe it is unfair, this just roots into the question: how much of the shareholder's assets do I think I deserve? That's why I keep on asking it, because that's what the question is. If I think it is theft/exploitation/unfair, then I want to change it. Petitioning and all that isn't what is being paraded around (usually, although you might be in favour of petitions over revolution): it is some violent overthrow of the system.

I don't think the overhaul you're describing will be done peacefully. So there must be some justification for aggression on the shareholder's assets. Is it just because I feel as if it is exploitation? Or is it just raw anger? Again, how much of his assets do I think I deserve, and why?

Personally, I would say none. If he wants to buy up shares, let him. I would object to the centralization of wealth in the hands of a few, though. But we can have a discussion about WHY that is being done. So, why do so few people have so much wealth? I shared around a Forbes piece about how billionaires are majority self-made, but it was dismissed as propaganda. Not really honest arguments made against it, but what I would agree with would be how the wealthy can and do utilize their wealth in their own interests/against the general public. That is something I do disagree with.

How many studies on Autism Level, brain size, skeletal structure, EQ, skin colour correlations etc would you like?

All you really need to do is realise the only 1st world countries are majority white countries, except perhaps Japan and UAE

I see leftypol censors those dangerous two letters

Oh, are we doing a "race doesn't exist" thing again? Here: www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900671-5.

Ugh

...

uh, no, we are doing the 'race is a useful social classification' thing again…

I see your post backs me up

nice contribution

And you need to read a fucking book and learn about imperialism.

Come on, man. Argue in good faith. I am trying to have a discussion to exchange our viewpoints. You know how easy it would be for me to just "ugh" my way out? We wouldn't get anywhere. Nobody would get anything done.

Now, I'll elaborate on what I mean by "risk".
It is "risky" in that you are not guaranteed an outcome. That's it. That is what I mean. Risky as in uncertain possibilities. If I knew Apple would tank, who would buy their shares?


Yeah, it does. Race is useful because evolution exists, as do common ancestors.
If it is all environmental, then offspring would not be dependent on anything related to their parents, which would mean Darwin was wrong. If it was all environmental, then the whole "natural selection of traits over time" and gradualism from evolutionary theory would be wrong, too. In reality, it's a combination of both: the most reasonable judgement to arrive at.

More on the topic: humanbiologicaldiversity.com/articles/Fuerst, John. "The nature of race." Open Behavioral Genetics, June, 2015.pdf

You gotta lurk more. It's really a very common thread here.
When it isn't Richard Lynn ((estimating)) Autism Levels adoption studies show a ten point difference between blacks and whites, and something similar between whites and azns.
Who gives a fuck?

Yeah bro, some antifa nerd telling his college friends about some mean trump supporter is the same as a well funded witchhunt campaign against "leftist agitators", which has a history in this country of being a really fucking big deal

Jesus christ what is it with people even on the left and being so completely without balls that they're afraid to jump to their own defense or call a spade a spade for fear of upsetting "the other side"?

We don't have to take Lynn or any of the "racists" at their word. In fact, let's go to the guys who refute them and dismiss their findings. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1041608009001071?via=ihub. It still arrives at sub-100, around 80 scores.

This is part of the reason race discussion is banned here. There are a fuckton of people who have pointed out how faulty Lynn and others are on their assertions.

Just to point out one of their faulty assertions in relation to Autism Level and Nations:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Reception_and_impact

I don't care if he's a racist, I care if he ignores studies he doesn't like and makes up Autism Level figures to suit his social Darwinism.

Why aren't you looking at adoption studies to rule those points out?

Im sure it is common. So the studies done on Autism Level all around the world are just estimations?
Also can I please have a source for those adoption studies? Thanks.


Nice, his Erectus Walks Amongst Us book was one of the best books ive read. Will take a look at that.

Some are, some are dishonest, and nutrition and education in poor countries is bad. I remember hearing that The Bell Curve guy administered a test with calculus in it, but I don't know if that's true.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Transracial_Adoption_Study

IQ isn't dependent on education, though. Article on the issue: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/04/blacks-and-whites-with-equal-educational-attainment-differ-in-cognitive-ability/.

As a pre-emptive measure to counter the genetic fallacy you might make ("they are all racists, therefore the information is wrong"), here is the paper the info is taken from: nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf.

On nutrition: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/malnutrition-and-national-iq-differences/, thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-intelligence-and-nutrition/.

At least in the US, the argument is thrown out. But certainly in Africa, it does play a portion. Again, hereditarianism isn't 100% genetic, it is expected to predict environmental concerns. In Africa, sure, a proportion is related to malnutrition. Recommend reading the links above if you care.

I have heard in the past that Lynn and co's work is not accurate, I appreciate you pointing out exactly how. Estimated national Autism Level's is pretty sketchy, but also, I cant see Ghana and Togo Autism Level being 100 while other African countries are 70-85. Also there are plenty of studies within the US on different races Autism Level.

Its not just Autism Level, its everything. Intelligence, creativity, but a big one is empathy and compassion. Other races are simply not on our level, you can see it in the way they treat each other and the way they treat animals. Chinese, African and Arab societies range from low-trust to extremely dangerous.

...

Considering how much of a fucking hole sub-Saharan Africa is, these results aren't very surprising.


We all know this blog is just going to cherry pick the sources that side with his view, even though this sort of research is basically a crapshoot. Hell, look at the sidebar, he even believes political orientation is hereditary even though those "studies" were torn to pieces as soon as they were published (tl;dr: they asserted that all political views are about how easily offended you are by culture war garbage).

These people think everything is genetic because it's easier to believe in some grand unified theory of society than to acknowledge the fact that reality is convoluted and can be difficult to understand. Fucking JP Rushton once publicly stated that believing in Islam, a religion that wants as many converts as possible, is genetic. It's nothing but projection of personal biases.

Paging wildcat poster.

These studies literally proved that the difference has slowly been closing:
peterdanpsychology.ro/ro/pagina/25/files/docs/black iq gains.pdf
More generally regarding Western society:
unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

You can just admit that you dislike them. You don't need to try to present it as objective fact, it's not like any of us will buy it anyway.

Wew lad.

Dude come on we know you're not white Holla Forums. This is just sad

I dont like them, im not hiding it, Id like to kill them all tbh. Nevertheless it seems to be true that they lack empathy to differente extents.

Also it is not explaining to me the specific race of the child they are testing. It just says 'Adopted, with one white and one black biological parent' etc.


im pretty white

Remember how I said 'As a pre-emptive measure to counter the genetic fallacy you might make ("they are all racists, therefore the information is wrong"), here is the paper the info is taken from: nces.ed.gov/pubs93/93275.pdf.'?
Now I can say that you DO make the genetic fallacies. So you can read the data they derive the info from to point out how they are biased/misrepresenting the argument beyond "they are racists, ergo the information is inaccurate."


"Considering how much of a fucking hole sub-Saharan Africa is, these results aren't very surprising."
Well, the whole point is that it isn't just "because they are shitholes". Cognitive ability is not static. Read the articles above to see more, it isn't just one empty slate: that isn't how evolution works.
"We all know this blog is just going to cherry pick the sources that side with his view, even though this sort of research is basically a crapshoot."
You can call anything cherrypicking. It is a claim you can't defend against. Unless you cite some counter-evidence showing how, say, race doesn't exist.
"Hell, look at the sidebar, he even believes political orientation is hereditary even though those "studies" were torn to pieces as soon as they were published (tl;dr: they asserted that all political views are about how easily offended you are by culture war garbage)."
Like the point above, I suggest citing your sources. Pretty sure Ryan is open to debate, you can reach out to him and discuss the issue further. But we aren't discussing political views, so it's dishonest to bring that in as if it is relevant to what affects intelligence.
Drawing from: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2017/01/07/race-and-iq-the-case-for-genes/
You are not being honest. Hereditarianism isn't "entirely genetic". Nobody believes that.
"Fucking JP Rushton once publicly stated that believing in Islam, a religion that wants as many converts as possible, is genetic. It's nothing but projection of personal biases."
This doesn't define hereditarianism. It is taking one stance that a hereditarian apparently said and applying that to what Ryan is saying. Even though Ryan explicitly states that he believes it is "around .8 heritability".

I've suggest reading the comments of the things you cite. From: unz.com/article/the-iq-gap-is-no-longer-a-black-and-white-issue/

"Selection isn’t an “environmentalist argument”, it is simple statistics and will apply even if hereditarianism is true. No matter what causes Autism Level differences, if you compare non-random samples, you will not generalizable results. Eg, if you compare blacks with PhDs to white high school dropouts, your results won’t be generalizable to the black and white populations at large.

As for selection among African immigrants, it is obvious and enormous. To use Nigerian immigrants to the US as an example, 58.6% have college degrees and 28.3% had graduate degrees. Among Nigerians as a whole, less than 10% have college degrees. The immigrants are therefore a highly non-representative selection of the Nigerian population."

"1. From the article:”If the genetic hypothesis is correct, children of elite African blacks will tend to have lower Autism Levels than children of native black Americans, and perhaps even lower than children of low Autism Level blacks”
This isn’t necessarily what you would predict. Regression towards the mean implies that the children of elite parents will be more average than their *parents*. Whether they regress to a lower mean than black Americans would depend on how strong the initial selection for elites was. If you pick elite enough members from a population, their children can have a higher mean Autism Level than any reference population (until they become so rare there are fewer than two elites in the world to produce children).

2. You downplayed the low level of admission of black students to elite universities in the UK.
From thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/news/black-students-miss-out-on-oxbridge-(1)/
“News this week that the total of 32 black students accepted by Oxford University in 2011 represents an increase from last year, is not much to write home about when 2010 figures show that fewer than one in 100 students beginning courses at Oxford or Cambridge were black.

At Cambridge, the number of admissions for black students fell to 16 out of an intake of 2,624, compared with 25 the previous year.”

From theguardian.com/education/abby-and-libby-blog/2013/dec/04/black-students-absence-diminishes-oxbridge :

“In a statement, Oxford says it spends £4.5 million a year on outreach work “to encourage students from all socio-economic and ethnic-minority backgrounds to apply”. The university said: “School attainment is the main barrier to getting more black students to Oxford.”

A spokesperson for Cambridge said in the Independent: “In the UK around 315 black students per year secure A*AA, our standard offer for admissions. This is around 1.2% of all UK students securing A*AA or better at A-level.”

I don’t have an explanation that is consistent with both this and the GCSE results, so I don’t know what’s going on.

3. Africa has the most genetic diversity of all continents. It is possible (even probable) that the average genetic Autism Level varies among regions and ethnic groups. I know you are taking Lynn and Jensen as the authorities on the hereditarian side, but their numbers can be off without it implying that there is a 100% environmental cause for the gaps."

"Appreciate the author’s effort to write this long essay.

If the null-hypothesis is that Africans had average academic achievements lower than that of other racial groups, the experimental effort would have to aim to either prove it or disprove it. I see there are a lot of horizontal and vertical bar charts with no statistical information. What are the sample sizes of the comparison groups? What are the p-values for any difference measured? If you shop online at amazon, you should know a product with 15 5-star reviews out of a total of 25 reviews does not carry the same statistical confidence in assessing it’s likelihood of high quality performance as one with 550 5-star review out of a total of 720 reviews. I am certain Ms. Ota is undoubtedly smart. However, just because Yao Ming is 7’4″ does not mean Chinese on the average are tall. This presentation is analogous to a post hoc subgroup analysis in pharmaceutical research. It’s often plagued with statistical uncertainty. Other reviewers have pointed out that a biased conclusion can result from when you comparing a elite subgroup from Nigeria with the general mixed group with other ethnic majorities or minorities. The fallacy is that while the author sub-divides the African group into smaller tribal groups, he is not giving other ethnic groups where he makes his comparisons with the same subdivision treatment. It is a fine essay but statistic rigor is lacking with certain methodological flaws."

It's just 2essentialist4me.
Whites can also be total shits, look at all the atrocities members of our glorious race have committed through the ages. Look at how white industrialists treated their workers in the industrial age. Children worked 10+ hour shifts in coal mines.

Look at the white man's writing:
askthepast.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/how-to-play-with-cat-1658.html

While the quran insists that muslims are kind to animals. Are Arabs confirmed master race now?

no proof

I did say there was an Autism Level difference.
Yes it is. First column.

...

Coincidentally enough, assuming the spread we observe w/ Nigerian students is indicative of, that 'thing' would be the standard of living available in the UK and not in Nigeria, seeing as how the differences HAVE to be environmental and not in the slightest genetic in origin. That would mean that the only reason the spread of scores is seen is because the white nation is capable of offering better access to education than the black nation.
How come blacks cannot produce these same circumstances in their own nations? Why is the environment that houses the best minds in white and asian nations (if it is always environment)?
Slavery has ended, not really seeing a reason why they might be held down…

...

Regardless of what other argument you use, using this argument shows anyone who uses it to be profoundly stupid. We are only 2 generations out max from the effects of jim crow and even beyond that differential enforcement of housing safety regulations (like lead in paint, water systems) that disproportionately impact certain communities of different races.

Pic related, this column? How does it explain the adopted childs race? Im confused.


Ok mate

We can compare small displays of cruelty like comparing children working in jobs to African genital mutilation, or comparing chinese people peeling fur off dogs faces while they are alive to whatever is in that video. Im not watching it, I cant stand cruelty to animals. Lets keep this generalised and dont give me random blog posts about some guy and his cat, im trying to read studies people are giving me and you are wasting my time.

Just to add on to Lynn's sketchiness:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IQ_and_the_Wealth_of_Nations#Wicherts_et_al_on_African_I.Q.s.2C_Lynn_Thesis

Story from: sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm
Paper here: iapsych.com/iqmr/fe/LinkedDocuments/wicherts2010b.pdf


nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html

Thank you for at least being honest.

And if the "environment is the single determining factor" argument is to be valid, then that would mean Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence does not exist, despite the fact that there is no comparison to the suffering the Jewish people have faced. The recent horrors of the Holocaust and the war should show in the studies, but it does not. In fact, one paper postulates that eugenic programs implemented by selective marriages in the Middle Ages is an explanation: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16867211


"We are only 2 generations out max from the effects of jim crow and even beyond that differential enforcement of housing safety regulations (like lead in paint, water systems) that disproportionately impact certain communities of different races."
See above. Jews are in the same circumstances. What about native Americans? Examine their current conditions and expand how the environment effects them. Using your logic, the relationship should be similar.

On lead: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/12/23/race-iq-and-lead/
"In the United States, Blacks score about 15 points lower than Whites on Autism Level tests (Roth et al., 2001). There is debate about the degree to which this gap is due to environmental and genetic factors. Lead is one environmental factor which is sometimes pointed to in order to explain this gap.

Based on the analysis from Lanphear et al., a 7.6 ug/dl difference in BLL (2.4 to 10.0) leads to an Autism Level difference of 3.9 points. The most recent CDC data available suggests that Black children have a mean BLL about 0.5 ug/dl higher than Whites which is 6.57% as large as a 7.6 ug/dl difference. This, in turn, should have an effect on Autism Level about 6.57% as large as -3.9 points, which is -0.26 points.

One complication is that the effect of lead on Autism Level may even be stronger at this very low level of BLL (1.8 vs 1.3) than is indicated by Lanphear’s estimate of the effect within the 2.4-10.0 ug/dl range. However, this effect is almost certainly less than one Autism Level point.

And this, of course, is in children. Among adults, there is no racial difference in BLL and so it can cause no Autism Level disparity.The effect of the childhood gap in BLL may persist into adulthood, but, as I reviewed above, research on this is far from conclusive or even consistent. And even if it does, it’s still going to be an effect of less than one point.

On the other hand, there was a small racial gap in adult lead exposure in the 70s and a larger childhood gap. The narrow of racial gaps in lead exposure may have played a role in the Black/White Autism Level gap slightly shrinking between the 1970s and 1980s.

In conclusion, lead does not play a major role in the B/W Autism Level gap. It may have played a larger role 40+ years ago, but today it contributes nearly nothing to racial intelligence differences."

See:

Jews and native americans are absolutely not "in the same circumstance". Your grasp of American history and the details of discriminatory policies going into the late 20th century are much, much, worse than your ability to parrot talking points from althype. It's actually pretty telling.

fuck forgot pic

Yes, they are. The assertion is that the environment determines capability, not genetics reflecting the environment's effect on your ancestors. That would mean a similar pattern has to be observed by the Jews. But it isn't, despite the fact that the Holocaust is objectively worse than Jim Crow or slavery of the past.
I hope you aren't extrapolating that I asserted Native American conquest is the point; that is not accurate. I mean to ask you to examine the circumstances the natives live in TODAY and compare it to blacks. The purchasing power, education level, etc. Not making any arguments about the past.
The only argument I made was criticizing the point about blacks/Jim Crow and Jews/Holocaust. If the assertion is true, then Jews, from the malnutrition of the camps to the brutal murder and torture, should be worse off than blacks.

Interestingly enough, the only time your slavery argument would make sense would be if…. there was some mechanism through which the parents passed down traits to their offspring…. I wonder what hereditarianism is all about….

I'll be reading these thanks for sending links, not enough time now

It tells you the races of their biological parents.

Small children working ten hours in a mine, my dude.

Good, anything else would be a red flag. Whites fur farm too.

...

...

No, they really really aren't. We're discussing real concrete policy not how badly someone's feelings get hurt by being racist against them. Policies like predatory lending, redlining, and blockbusting have been and continue to be destructive to black communities in a way that is in no way analogous to any policies faced by jews or native americans currently or even a few decades ago. These destructive policies mean that black neighborhoods *today* have higher incidence of lead poisoning among other developmental health hazards that directly or indirectly lead to lower I.Q. outcomes.

The idea that I was just saying "they faced racism a few generations ago" is just bizarre and is exactly why I claimed you knew very little about the subject.

Anti-Communism is the cornerstone of fascism. Nothing new there.

LEL.
What a low eyequeue retard.
Do us all a favor and just kill yourself. Humanity is already filled with retards like you.

What the fuck does this even mean

How do you ‘prove’ taking value from someone producing something is or is not theft? It’s obvious to everyone not focused on sucking capitalist dick

That's the thing when you levy an accusation of that calibre: you'll have to point out how the conclusion is biased in that regard. Otherwise, you can wage the same accusations against literally anything, seeing as how there is no way to defend it against anything.

"The earth is round? Nah, those scientists are all biased, they cherrypick the info and their agendas influence the conclusion."

A good litmus test would be to see how applicable the argument is to other cases and how one can defend against it. Otherwise, it's basically unfalsifiable and cannot be defended against. Pair it with a substantive refutation of the conclusion and you'll have an argument.


The Holocaust was not hurt feelings. It was infinitely worse than literally anything blacks have ever faced in the US. Using your own argument, the same pattern should be present. Same goes with feudal serfs in Russia. Subjugated to the same treatment as slaves for longer than blacks were. In fact, the only argument where slavery would still be relevant would be if parents pass down traits to their offspring… which is hereditarianism.


Without anecdotes, quantify the issues you just put forth. The strawman is that I claimed Jews/natives faced "racism". For Jews, I said they were straight-up killed (far worse than any fate blacks received, as it was en masse gassings/shootings), and to examine the living conditions of natives and blacks to see if the same patterns are true.
More on the topic: thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/08/23/racism-and-iq/
And if you attack sources for being "racist", then please dissect the paper from which the conclusion is derived from: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188691630410X.

Oh, are we back to the lead thing? Here, see:
Lead doesn't affect the intelligence as much as you purport. Why don't you cite something that illustrates the proportion of the difference it makes? Just saying "this is the case" isn't an argument.

Yes, because it is an argument that refutes your premise (i.e., a non-sequitur) because that would rely on traits being passed down to offspring, which would prove Darwin right. It would also mean that you could quantify the "racism" and examine its effects beyond anecdotes, which you have not been able to do.


If I say you stole something from me, I must first justify my ownership and aggression (if I decide to retaliate). Otherwise, I never owned it to begin with.
Because you are relying on the archaic "one person creates one thing" understanding of employment. It isn't simply "employee and employer". There are other elements of society all interacting with one another, and the business owner is in charge of… his business. He is expected to pay each factor that leads to the product accordingly. No one person can claim ownership simply because they shipped it, or assembled it, or even if it was only the one person who created it… until they prove/justify their ownership. A good question to ask: is it their business?

Hmm.

My absolute favorite part about this study that racists constantly rehash is that if you pretend any conclusion can be drawn from a study with a sample of two hundred, the obvious conclusion is that there is a persistent difference in Autism Level scores when the background is changed, but racists simultaneously believe that there is no confounding variable in Autism Level testing and that it is a pure representation of a highly heritable intelligence that cannot be affected by your surroundings

Does the concept of time confuse you? We're not talking about lasting effects from WW2, we're talking about right fucking now

...

The holocaust did not effect even close to the majority of jews currently in the US you disingenuous dimwit.

No one brought up "racism" as a serious argument except for you because you are desperate to reframe concrete policy as "muh waycism". No one cares about anyone's feelings here except you, but only because you're desperate to feel special

Who ever said it was? The argument centers on how theft of labor power by a small minority in control of all the world's engines of survival, the means of production we must use to do socially necessary labor in the modern world, is against the best interests of everyone outside this owner class. Why would you think this assumes or implies that profiting off others labor is a deterministic, sure thing? Of course there's an element of uncertainty involved. Extracting labor value hinges on a protracted process of competition against other capitalists and the workers, which is influenced by material conditions, public policy, and a myriad of other things. This is precisely why we see things like colonialism, imperialism/geopolitics, trade policies, and government regulation in general, because of a cutthroat environment of competition between different capitalists trying to swing the barest competitive advantage out of the socialized "monopolies on the use of force" which exist precisely for that purpose.
Very different things. Managers are employees hired by the company officers to manage - to do administrative and organizational labor within the company. Company officers are employees designated for broad discretionary authority by the company's owners, and they do administrative, organizational, and intellectual labor as well. This labor invariably must be done for the company to operate as it does, but ownership does not itself perform any managerial labor and so is not socially useful to the process of production.
The fact that a majority shareholder must either take executive authority in the company or designate someone else to do it is a moot point, risk is not equal to managerial labor and this conjunction of the two is baffling.
We move away from subsistence farming and towards a more specialized economy with greater division of labor because that's what development is. It's efficient. People naturally come to perform more and more atomized parts of more and more complicated projects as the projects themselves become more complex.
Ho boy.
For a rentier who can, if he so chooses, live in a specific moment entirely off the product of others' labor, without performing any labor himself, owing to his "ownership" of a thing, for a capitalist, the greatest "risk" is that of in the next moment falling into the proletariat and losing that prerogative. Of having to sell his labor power to survive, like any prole. The risk faced by proles is the risk of unemployment should the company underperform, homelessness, serious unexpected expenses he cannot meet, and so on.
Every asset is "risky." Nothing is perfectly certain. If by owning a means of production a capitalist rationally expects to come out worse than had he deposited its price in a savings account and let inflation take its course, he'd just have done the latter. By analogy with the above, it's less risky to make sane blue-chip investments than to merely hold continuously depleting assets, because the latter will almost surely lead one down into the proletariat, given sufficient time and inflation. Or his descendants, if they do the same. If someone is inclined to make more speculative investments, sure, but the blue chip options form the benchmark against which that is implicitly judged. The bourgeoisie do not make a "risk sacrifice" in merely attempting to remain bourgeois.

Honestly curious what you think "tanking" should look like in a post-market, democratically planned economy. Not enough people want a new XYZ Tablet? Gee, I guess a whole bunch of "wealth" is going to magically evaporate from the masses, who were unwillingly forced into risk, huh.

How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?
Marxists don't propose capitalist policy positions like simple redistribution. Seize the physical means of production and rationally use them according to social need.
The normal day to day functioning of capitalism is not "done peacefully," eg. rent-seeking, imperialism, trade policy, every other complaint a lolbert has about government and regulation, and the narco-state and similar "illegitimate" organs acting as primitive states, in the sense of "local monopolies on the use of force."
Wow, I didn't know anyone could earn a billion dollars in wages, with the capitalist's cut deducted no less, or that anybody's own labor could be worth that much! Or, maybe they used "self-made" to mean "exploited the labor of others, rather than inheriting wealth without personally exploiting anyone." Which is kind of duh and/or hello on the one hand, and sounds like propaganda on the other. Go figure.

The Holocaust was not one "traumatic episode". Almost half of all Jews on Earth died. If the same had occurred to the blacks, then the "environmentalist" issue would be extended to them. Might I also add that slavery is not always extended to a black victim. Whites have also had, as you say, a "generations of deprivation" when they were the victims of a slave trade. Just like Jews being victims of slavery.
Point still stands, if slavery was to have such an affect on blacks, then the Holocaust would be destructive for the Jews. Except the opposite is true.

Yet you are comparing Jim Crow. Jim Crow has been abolished.
Does the concept of time confuse you? Modern "racism" has been made all but illegal, blacks face nothing comparable to what they used to. Unless, like I said, you can cite literally one source that quantifies the issues you put forth beyond anecdotes. Just saying "there is racism so they have 'x'" doesn't mean you have proven the statement true.

How are they nazis? And, without a substantive assessment/refutation of the conclusion, how would the point "I disagree with a political belief, ergo the conclusion is wrong" be a logical statement? Obsessing over some irrelevant German party that hasn't been around for 80 years isn't an argument.

The majority of the world's Jews lived in Europe. Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is not just "US Jews". It is a sustained phenomenon. See the paper I cited above.

See:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2235210/
There really is no "safe" level of blood lead level, and variations at the level claimed certianly have a stronger observed effect than "1 point". Claims to the contrary are usually given by politicians and property owners covering their asses

By small i didnt mean its nothing bad, I just meant small in terms of being representative of whole populations of races

Learn to read. I was clearly discussing legacy policies derived from Jim Crow. You're either very naive or being purposely disingenuous.

And even if I was only pointing to policies that were completely abolished after Jim Crow, the two timescales would not be remotely equivalent

Why are you so bad at reading comprehension? The post literally says the important factor is"…not how badly someone's feelings get hurt by being racist"

That's the only time the word "racist" appears in that post

A load of people dying isn't the same as generations of deprivation. Can't you see that?

...

The holocaust may have made jews smarter because survival required cunning and ingenuity, and mass extermination of those caught inadvertently selected for these traits
Slavery may have made blacks less smart because that degree of captivity made the population's selective pressures line up extensively with the masters' rational self-interest.
Either that, or the holocaust didn't make jews dumb because they rule the world and all public policy today is implicitly pro-jewish, or something.

"Who ever said it was? The argument centers on how theft of labor power by a small minority in control of all the world's engines of survival, the means of production we must use to do socially necessary labor in the modern world, is against the best interests of everyone outside this owner class"
You gloss over the central point I make. I'll chalk it up to this being the first sentence you might have read. Theft is only theft if you can justify ownership, which is why I ask: how much of my wealth do you think you deserve?

"Why would you think this assumes or implies that profiting off others labor is a deterministic, sure thing? Of course there's an element of uncertainty involved. Extracting labor value hinges on a protracted process of competition against other capitalists and the workers, which is influenced by material conditions, public policy, and a myriad of other things. This is precisely why we see things like colonialism, imperialism/geopolitics, trade policies, and government regulation in general, because of a cutthroat environment of competition between different capitalists trying to swing the barest competitive advantage out of the socialized "monopolies on the use of force" which exist precisely for that purpose."
Then if there is risk involved, that would mean both claims of ownership are extended, even when the shareholders fail. The shareholder doesn't extract labour from anything seeing as how he doesn't assume a role in the company like a CEO does. "All shareholders" being in that situation is a huge chunk of the population.

"Very different things. Managers are employees hired by the company officers to manage - to do administrative and organizational labor within the company. Company officers are employees designated for broad discretionary authority by the company's owners, and they do administrative, organizational, and intellectual labor as well. This labor invariably must be done for the company to operate as it does, but ownership does not itself perform any managerial labor and so is not socially useful to the process of production. "
The managers still own shares. To be a manager is does not limit one from ever owning shares, just like how company officers may also own a proportion of the company's shares to necessitate a seat on the board of directors, for example.

"The fact that a majority shareholder must either take executive authority in the company or designate someone else to do it is a moot point, risk is not equal to managerial labor and this conjunction of the two is baffling.
We move away from subsistence farming and towards a more specialized economy with greater division of labor because that's what development is. It's efficient. People naturally come to perform more and more atomized parts of more and more complicated projects as the projects themselves become more complex. "
A shareholder to what degree? Not all shareholders are pushed into such a position, though. To the layperson, the "risk" is simply purchasing shares from many companies. This does not mean they assume a managerial role of all those companies, but it does mean that they assume risk when purchasing those shares.
I agree with the evolution of labour point.

"For a rentier who can, if he so chooses, live in a specific moment entirely off the product of others' labor, without performing any labor himself, owing to his "ownership" of a thing, for a capitalist, the greatest "risk" is that of in the next moment falling into the proletariat and losing that prerogative. Of having to sell his labor power to survive, like any prole. The risk faced by proles is the risk of unemployment should the company underperform, homelessness, serious unexpected expenses he cannot meet, and so on.
Every asset is "risky." Nothing is perfectly certain. If by owning a means of production a capitalist rationally expects to come out worse than had he deposited its price in a savings account and let inflation take its course, he'd just have done the latter. By analogy with the above, it's less risky to make sane blue-chip investments than to merely hold continuously depleting assets, because the latter will almost surely lead one down into the proletariat, given sufficient time and inflation. Or his descendants, if they do the same. If someone is inclined to make more speculative investments, sure, but the blue chip options form the benchmark against which that is implicitly judged. The bourgeoisie do not make a "risk sacrifice" in merely attempting to remain bourgeois."
There is no obligation for the rentier to exert any effort or labour. That is the entire purpose who hiring those who work for him. "Profiting off of labour" is referred to as trade. You can offer your labour or you can ask others to work for you. This does nothing to refute the risk involved in owning shares, though. The "next moment falling into the proletariat and losing that prerogative" issue is one of the factors that lead to shares falling in value. It isn't the only one, though.
The term deposit versus shares is an option many also make. Some opt to just take interest rates that are barely above the inflation rate. The issue is to determine what is "sane" and what isn't. It also assumes that the bourgeoisie is a static element of society, which it is not: youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8clPrg7kc.


"Honestly curious what you think "tanking" should look like in a post-market, democratically planned economy. Not enough people want a new XYZ Tablet? Gee, I guess a whole bunch of "wealth" is going to magically evaporate from the masses, who were unwillingly forced into risk, huh."
No, that the worth of the stock would plummet. Just as the success would be distributed, so, too, would the failure.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?
Marxists don't propose capitalist policy positions like simple redistribution. Seize the physical means of production and rationally use them according to social need."
So for the chairmen and large shareholders, whoever they may be, how much of their assets should be "seized" and how can you justify the aggression?

"The normal day to day functioning of capitalism is not "done peacefully," eg. rent-seeking, imperialism, trade policy, every other complaint a lolbert has about government and regulation, and the narco-state and similar "illegitimate" organs acting as primitive states, in the sense of "local monopolies on the use of force.""
Why purchase a lot if you can't afford it. You are not entitled to anything, you cannot expect to live for free on any plot of land you do not own/cannot put forth a coherent argument justifying your ownership of. How does imperialism affect you? Trade policy is a broad term, you'll have to elaborate. You mean trade of oil, so the gas prices?

"Wow, I didn't know anyone could earn a billion dollars in wages, with the capitalist's cut deducted no less, or that anybody's own labor could be worth that much! Or, maybe they used "self-made" to mean "exploited the labor of others, rather than inheriting wealth without personally exploiting anyone." Which is kind of duh and/or hello on the one hand, and sounds like propaganda on the other. Go figure."
Companies are not as small as they were in the 1800's. There is a lot more wealth today than a century ago. Self-made refers to "no inheritance". If they own a company, the profits the company makes are their own.

You fucking ignorant retard. Literally every group of people do some nasty stuff, it's not a race specific thing.
If you are going to judge "entire populations of races" because of it then you would have to judge humanity as a whole, it's something fucking obvious. But of course being a dishonest faggot that you are you just ignore and minimize it when it's "your group of people" doing the wrongs while maximizing it when it's anyone else as being "an utterly definitely representation of a raece".
Really, I'm not kidding when I say you are retarded.

I'm gonna need you to greentext that correctly, you seem as through you're trying to spite me

(You)

To what degree does the lead poisoning take effect? Also noteworthy is how this issue is concerned with children, whereas the lead effect is not as pronounced in adulthood: sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002934316306003, ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8028141.


"Learn to read. I was clearly discussing legacy policies derived from Jim Crow. You're either very naive or being purposely disingenuous."
Cite an example of how Jim Crow lives on and how we can extend the anecdotes derives from the law to a national scale (i.e. quantify the claim).


You'll have to be more specific in your response, I am responding to many of you at once. So we are in agreement that there is no such example of "racism" taking a massive effect on African-American populations, seeing as how no substantive report has been produced quantifying the degree to which it affects intelligence?


The pogroms and anti-Semitism of the past is far more elaborate and extensive than racism against blacks. Anti-Semitism is thousands of years old. If any group of people have an argument against 'generations of deprivation', it would be Jews.

Also, just wanted to point out that the very mention of generations assumes traits and experiences are passed down to offspring, which is exactly what hereditarianism claims.


I never said it was without refutation. I asked you how one can defend against your accusation and for you to prove how they are "nazis".
Appealing to the authority of "Cambridge". Many of the "nazi intellectuals" also hold degrees. Does this make them "automatically right" just because you agree with their credentials? Or is truth determined by the merit of the assertion made?
We also never discussed Jewish Bolshevism. The issue has not been debunked simply because you assert that it has been, especially when you observe the Old Bolsheviks. Marx, himself, was ancestrally Jewish. As was Lenin (quarter-Jew). For more, I suggest reading Solzhenitsyn (theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books).
Anything 'anti-'x'' is not automatically incorrect. That isn't how an argument works.


This seems like speculation. I'd suggest reading the paper I cited above about Jewish intelligence. This, again, relies on hereditarianism to be true.

(You)

I prefer to quote you directly, as I have been accused of partially quoting posts. I can use the arrow, then, but do not take it as sarcasm or ad hominem.

I fail to see how this is a response to our discussion. Who are you citing? What pages, specifically? How is this relevant to the issue of substantiation of the claim to ownership regarding shareholders? I can dissect the post, but it will be a while as I have to type it out first. So bear with me.

Commodity is vague and does reach to a vast area, so sure. People hold wealth. Those with lots of it are bourgeoise. What can be exchanged can also be utilized in the process of said exchange. So, exchanging currency A for currency B utilized the transfer process. The currency is fully used up to purchase another currency. If you purchase one commodity in exchange for another, you can also be said to have exchanged the worth of one commodity for its equal worth (at the time) for another. Weird two-fold aspect, in my opinion.


Time is, technically, a commodity. Wheat can be used, yes. So can cotton, and fur. I do agree that its physical capabilities limit it. You cannot use wheat to buy a pack of cigarettes because barter has been made irrelevant. You can also create measurements for wheat and the like. I agree.


I feel like you omitted a definition. Laying out the two fold aspect without defining its second aspect, then making a statement like "wealth always consists of use-values, which in the first instance are not affected by this form", is not honest.
There are professions, like a wine-taster, who refute the claim about the source of wheat production. The diamond exists as a commodity on the market. Its use-value is not universal and may vary depending on the consumer. What you find necessary/attractive is not equivalent to what I do. A diamond does not have to be utilized at every moment in order to have value, as that is not where the value is derived from.
"Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy."
It is exactly bound BY the determined economic form a consumer might assign to it. It isn't independent, it relies on that (i.e. dependent). A good does not have to exist within a politically assigned economy, as that does not determine worth. In fact, it is largely irrelevant. The only issue is how one consumer might price a diamond.
A diamond can be exchanged for a currency. If that is what 'exchange value' references, then it is accurate.

I agree with the definition, although markets fluctuate so it would be foolish to assume universality.
One "use-value" might not be exactly traded for another. A bank does not charge exactly 1.X Euros for 1 USD. They will also charge for their services. Try it yourself, banks have differing exchange rates at any given time. It isn't equal, the opposite is true.
I agree with the statement about how goods can be exchanged, no matter how varied they might be. That is why currency is invaluable and barter is irrelevant.

If by social activity, you mean work put in to mine the diamond, then yes.

I mean, I was saying not to judge the level of cruelty of races based on single instances, I wanted to keep it generalised, and thats what I was saying to the origininal guy who mentioned children working in mines or whatever. I think on the whole white people are clearly nicer, and thus we have better teamwork and came to dominate the other races. Blacks are clearly more violent and asians lack creativity and empathy

This is horribly copy-pasted. I can tell you did not actually write any of this yourself.

I will post it entirely, without greentext.

"Money as distinguished from coin is the result of the circuit C – M – C and constitutes the starting point
of the circuit M – C – M, that is the exchange of money for commodities so as to exchange commodities
for money. In the form C – M – C it is the commodity that is the beginning and the end of the
transaction; in the form M – C – M it is money. Money mediates the exchange of commodities in the
first circuit, the commodities mediates the evolution of money into money in the second circuit. Money,
which serves solely as a medium in the first circuit, appears as the goal of circulation in the second,
whereas the commodity, which was the goal in the first circuit, appears simply as a means in the second.
Because money itself is already the result of the circuit C – M – C, the result of circulation appears to be
also its point of departure in the form M – C – M. The exchange of material is the content of C – M –
C, whereas the real content of the second circuit, M – C – M, is the commodity in the form in which it
emerged from the first circuit.
In the formula C – M – C the two extremes are commodities of the same value, which are at the same
time however qualitatively different use-values. Their exchange, C – C, is real exchange of material. On
the other hand, in the formula M – C – M both extremes are gold and moreover gold of the same value.
But it seems absurd to exchange gold for commodities in order to exchange commodities for gold, or if
one considers the final result M – M, to exchange gold for gold. But if one translates M – C – M into
the formula – to buy in order to sell, which means simply to exchange gold for gold with the aid of an
intermediate movement, one will immediately recognise the predominant form of bourgeois production.
Nevertheless, in real life people do not buy in order to sell, but they buy at a low price in order to sell at a
high price. They exchange money for commodities in order then to exchange these for a larger amount of
money, so that the extremes M, M are quantitatively different, even if not qualitatively. This quantitative
difference presupposes the exchange of non-equivalents, whereas commodities and money as such are
merely antithetical forms of the commodity, in other words, different forms of existence of the same
value. Money and commodity in the circuit M – C – M therefore imply more advanced relations of
production, and within simple circulation the circuit is merely a reflection of movement of a more
complex character. Hence money as distinct from the medium of circulation must be derived from C – M
– C, the immediate form of commodity circulation."

This is a problem with just copy-pasting things without citations. What is the context and how is this relevant to the substantiation of ownership?
Exchange is USD to GBP, yes.
I agree that the third space, be it commodity or money, is the goal of the transaction. In MCM, that could be currency for a diamond, which is resold at a later time for money. In CMC, the reverse is true.

"In the formula C – M – C the two extremes are commodities of the same value, which are at the same
time however qualitatively different use-values."
Not necessarily true. The value is not static because markets are not static.

"On
the other hand, in the formula M – C – M both extremes are gold and moreover gold of the same value.
But it seems absurd to exchange gold for commodities in order to exchange commodities for gold, or if
one considers the final result M – M, to exchange gold for gold."
One may wish to purchase an item and sell it away if one desires. There is nothing strange about that. Have you ever sold a video game you used to own? It is not in high demand anymore, so you won't be able to sell it for what you bought it for (even adjusting for inflation).


"But if one translates M – C – M into
the formula – to buy in order to sell, which means simply to exchange gold for gold with the aid of an
intermediate movement, one will immediately recognise the predominant form of bourgeois production.
Nevertheless, in real life people do not buy in order to sell, but they buy at a low price in order to sell at a
high price."
Why would you buy something at a high price and sell it at a lower price? You have lost money. If you buy an Xbox now and sell it ten years from now, adjusting for inflation, you will have lost money (or made a bunch if the console or video game is in high demand). In a society, not everybody is supposed to work. You can, hypothetically, earn enough money to just sell Xboxes endlessly when the time is right. But you have to read the markets pretty well.

"They exchange money for commodities in order then to exchange these for a larger amount of
money, so that the extremes M, M are quantitatively different, even if not qualitatively."
Accurate. Just stating this does not actually offer a refutation on any moral grounds justifying the aggression. It a statement of fact. Buy low, sell high.

"This quantitative
difference presupposes the exchange of non-equivalents, whereas commodities and money as such are
merely antithetical forms of the commodity, in other words, different forms of existence of the same
value."
The difference in value obviously presupposes an exchange to occur as the difference in value is reflective of the worth of the good on the market. One can choose to purchase it, if they want to.
Money is another form of the same "value" of the good. This is what the whole exchange value is referencing.

"Hence money as distinct from the medium of circulation must be derived from C – M
– C, the immediate form of commodity circulation."
USD is not gold-backed anymore, the Federal Reserve determines the worth, not a random commodity.

I see that you've deleted your post. I hope you repost it, formatted properly. Ironic that you berate MY formatting for lacking in greentext.

It's different people

Okay, we can assume this, that they are all equal at that point in time on the market.
Not necessarily. One may exert much more effort into mining iron ore than one does weaving silk. The labour that goes into the iron ore is as determined by the consumer, whose demand is reflected in the employer's business practices. It isn't "equal labour". One can work many hours to mine iron ore, whereas one may work only a few minutes to harvest cotton if a machine is utilized. The ratios are not 1:1.
The labour itself is not irrelevant just because a consumer may value all of the goods equally, despite the variety in their material composition. Especially when you assert the labour is "equal". The qualitative difference does not determine their worth on the market. Just because something is glossy does not increase its value: it is the will of the consumer that does so, which is not universal. A good may just so happen to be glossy, or coarse. It is never relevant to the question to begin with. There are many more factors, none of which are primarily dependent on the qualitative features of, say, a diamond. One of them being how many diamonds there are available on the market.
The issue is that the labour is not uniform. Simply because all goods come out to $1000 does not mean the labour ration is 1:1, as this is, again, determined by the individual. In this case, one worker may value one form of labour "equal" to another. The worth of the labour does not manifest itself in the worth of the diamond in its entirety. There are, like I said above, many factors, none of which are dependent on how hard somebody works to mine a diamond. The extension of "since they are all worth 1k but are qualitatively different, then the labour's worth is now irrelevant" presupposes labour to be the primary factor determining the worth of a good. It assumes the archaic "I was the only individual who made any impact on the production of this material" form of labour, which cannot be found as often as it was. One can easily justify the labour of the shipping companies who pass over the goods to the consumer as being a determining factor for the worth of the material itself. In reality, the consumer is the one who sets the price point, as one may inflate the worth vastly. What you find valuable is not what I might find valuable.

...

If they are all priced at 1k USD, then yes. Again, it is foolish to expect to use 1k USD to buy iron, then assume that the worth of said iron will remain static and allow you to exchange it for wheat.
The question about the measurement of the goods is just their worth on the market. The labour is irrelevant. This is making the old error: what weighs more, a pound of kilogram or a pound of steel? They are both the same, but the volume differs. It will take a lot more wheat to amount to the same worth of iron ore, as there are many factors (like demand) that increase the worth of iron ore. The labour exerted to mine the iron ore does not determine its worth, only what the employee is paid. Once he has mined the iron, his job is finished. The question operates on a false premise assuming an archaic form of labour, which is why I ask that you source your claims and actually respond to the counter-points: none of this answers the issue we were discussing about shareholders and stocks.
"The labour-time materialised in the use-values of commodities is both the substance that turns them into exchange-values and therefore into commodities, and the standard by which the precise magnitude of their value is measured."
Would you like to cite anything showing this? Just stating it does not make it true. This presupposes an exchange value of 1:1, both in the worth of a good and that the labour is somehow relevant to the worth mentioned.
A good is not worth less just because the worker does not exert as much labour as before.

Just because some iron ore and a different volume of wheat cost 1k USD does not mean that the labour exerted into mining/harvesting the iron/wheat is equivalent as this presupposes the fact that the labour determines the worth of the good. The entire assertion operates on a false premise.
Let's say a chef makes a meal. He works one hour and makes ten meals. Each meal sells for $20. That means, in one hour, the meals the chef makes sell for $200. The restaurant gets $200. The chef does not because he does not create the ingredients, or ship them to the restaurant, or wait on the tables, or operate the facilities which store the ingredients. Therefore he cannot claim his labour alone is the sole, determining factor for the worth of the meals as that is determined by the customers who are willing to eat. If the restaurant prices the meals at $200 each and nobody buys them, then they will have to lower the price point until customers come back to eat. This is independent of how the chef assembles the ingredients or cooks them.

Ah, I see. Excuse me for the mistake, as I am replying to more than one person. This board needs IDs.

Where are the rebuttals? To any of my points? Do people just dip in, copy-paste unsourced material purporting truths, then dip out when a rebuttal is offered? Are any of you interested in conversation or just shitposting.

Someone memed you into reading the opening of Capital, mate. You then proceeded to misunderstand the definitions and "argue against" their elementary consequences. It's like someone who insists he can "disprove" the Hahn-Banach Theorem by, after hearing the definition of a metric space, claiming that "distance just doesn't work like that, it's a physical quantity in the real world!" or that function spaces can't be metric spaces because "they're made up of functions, so they obviously can't be spaces!"
Your "points" are the most banal, grating, autismal text walls I have ever seen on this board.
You insist on plunging into some subjective moral philosophy at every turn, skating completely past understanding the is-ought problem above and insist on making Marxism itself a moral philosophy.
You insist on stonewalling every single point brought up to you, rather than engaging with - or in many cases even understanding them

A sampling:

The bourgeoisie are those who own the means of production. Not le ebin people who have more XDD. Here you've misunderstood a definition.
"Use value" is defined as the objective, material substance of a commodity. It is a physical property. Water has the same use value, it has the same properties and does the same things in the same contexts, regardless of the utility, the subjective valuation a person places on it at a given moment. Yes, a person wandering the desert without water for two days would assign a higher utility to a liter of water than someone at home with running water. Here you've misunderstood another definition and attempted to argue against the elementary consequences meant as examples/an aid to understanding the definition.

Here you've used a non sequitur, dancing around having to actually rebut the claim that capitalism functions through violence. It doesn't matter whether or not imperialism affects me, or how, what matters is that the bourgeoisie, through the bourgeois state, implement violent policy to suppress market competition, interfere in resource, product, labor, and capital markets, seize access to the resources of other lands, and so on. All "coercive" in the libertarian sense, and all because it is profitable to do so and as such their rational incentives point towards doing it. You haven't even mustered a token rebuttal to the points of rent-seeking in general, to regulation and government coercion (as criticized by libertarians,) or to the narco-state as an illustration of a less-socialized, less-integrated bourgeois state, and merely insinuated that you can't even address governments (violently) imposing trade policies in the interest of the bourgeoisie, because it's "a broad term." But you still see that as an adequate rebuttal if for no other reason than that the turd's back in my pocket now.
Here you're begging the question. Yes, I know that if you own a company, you own the profits. The issue is not what the logic of capitalist property rights says people "should have." The point is the abolition of private property. It's not a matter of saying, "hey! the internal logic of capitalist institutions actually means we should expropriate the capitalists!"

This is also baffling. Managerial labor and ownership are distinct social roles. They can occur together in the same person, or separately in different people. Managers do not necessarily own shares. Shareholders do not necessarily manage. The fact that they can has no bearing, what-so-ever, on the argument you're responding to.

Rebutting every last one of your "points" would take longer than anyone can spend on this, and would almost certainly lead to nothing more than the same sort of inane non-responses. It's obvious this is just a deflecting gish gallop and not legitimate argumentation, but what isn't obvious is whether you understand this and are doing it deliberately, or whether you're just an idiot with no hint of self-awareness.

Kropotkin was a shit biologist, fam. Even though we co-operate when needed we still compete with others, and co-operation also results in hierarchy.

Without hierarchy we were apes who would only come down from the trees to harvest beetles from the dung of greater beasts. With hierarchy we went to the moon. Hierarchy is needed for a stable society.

10/10 debunking looks like the entire field of anthropology is wrong now.

SAVAGE

Read some up-to-date material. Competition = advancement
labtimes.org/labtimes/issues/lt2008/lt06/lt_2008_06_3_3.pdf

"Someone memed you into reading the opening of Capital, mate. You then proceeded to misunderstand the definitions and "argue against" their elementary consequences. It's like someone who insists he can "disprove" the Hahn-Banach Theorem by, after hearing the definition of a metric space, claiming that "distance just doesn't work like that, it's a physical quantity in the real world!" or that function spaces can't be metric spaces because "they're made up of functions, so they obviously can't be spaces!"
Your "points" are the most banal, grating, autismal text walls I have ever seen on this board.
You insist on plunging into some subjective moral philosophy at every turn, skating completely past understanding the is-ought problem above and insist on making Marxism itself a moral philosophy.
You insist on stonewalling every single point brought up to you, rather than engaging with - or in many cases even understanding them"
Without citations, it is, still, just a copy-pasted slew of nonsense.
I see that you respond to my points, so I will assume the issue you have with my rebuttals is addressed within them. The "elementary consequences" aren't indicative of the validity of the system of beliefs. Banal and grating are not arguments. I hope your counter-points are a little more substantive.

Owning businesses, actually. People who own their own businesses own their own businesses. Those people just so happen to be wealthier than the workers.

""Use value" is defined as the objective, material substance of a commodity. It is a physical property. Water has the same use value, it has the same properties and does the same things in the same contexts, regardless of the utility, the subjective valuation a person places on it at a given moment. Yes, a person wandering the desert without water for two days would assign a higher utility to a liter of water than someone at home with running water. Here you've misunderstood another definition and attempted to argue against the elementary consequences meant as examples/an aid to understanding the definition."
You highlight my main issue with the point "Use-value as such, since it is independent of the determinate economic form, lies outside the sphere of investigation of political economy". You just stated that "a person wandering the desert without water for two days would assign a higher utility to a liter of water than someone at home with running water". That is the entire assertion: the consumer dictates the worth of, say, water as it is the necessity and demand that dictate its worth on a market. Water is not valuable just by its mere existence as it is. You are simply describing its characteristics. That is not relevant to why it has worth on a market, or why consumers value it more often than other consumers.

"Here you've used a non sequitur, dancing around having to actually rebut the claim that capitalism functions through violence. It doesn't matter whether or not imperialism affects me, or how, what matters is that the bourgeoisie, through the bourgeois state, implement violent policy to suppress market competition, interfere in resource, product, labor, and capital markets, seize access to the resources of other lands, and so on. All "coercive" in the libertarian sense, and all because it is profitable to do so and as such their rational incentives point towards doing it. You haven't even mustered a token rebuttal to the points of rent-seeking in general, to regulation and government coercion (as criticized by libertarians,) or to the narco-state as an illustration of a less-socialized, less-integrated bourgeois state, and merely insinuated that you can't even address governments (violently) imposing trade policies in the interest of the bourgeoisie, because it's "a broad term." But you still see that as an adequate rebuttal if for no other reason than that the turd's back in my pocket now."
How is the free exchange of goods and services violent? The individual who defends his property rights against your unsubstantiated claims to ownership is violent in self-defense. A hawkish foreign policy of the USA is not within the definition of capitalist. It is equivalent to conflating a gulag with Communism just because Soviets called themselves that. Not an argument, basically. Just because the US was imperialist does not allow one to logically bridge the gap between a foreign policy held by the US and a mode of production.
Rent-seeking is not violent. If you use a service, you are not entitled to have access to it for free if you cannot prove your just ownership. The "bourgeois state" is an oxymoron just like "state capitalism" is an oxymoron. Any entity that perverts the value of a product, or arbitrarily imposes taxation on a business/individuals, or subsidizes an industry, is antithetical to laissez-faire economics.
You have not even cited a quotation I have made illustrating my stance ON government regulation/coercion in order to accurately describe what my stance on those might be. It must be very advantageous to make my arguments for me, then berate me for not being stern enough in those non-existent arguments.

Justify the abolition of private property, then. On what grounds do you determine ownership of the means of production without appealing to some arbitrary, 'God-given' rights to ownership of others' assets?

I have never equated the two (i.e. if you manage a company, then you must also own it). I merely pointed out how the chairman or manager can also own shares, as they are not independent of each other. Just the same as you point out, a shareholder might not necessarily sit in with the board of directors.

"Rebutting every last one of your "points" would take longer than anyone can spend on this, and would almost certainly lead to nothing more than the same sort of inane non-responses. It's obvious this is just a deflecting gish gallop and not legitimate argumentation, but what isn't obvious is whether you understand this and are doing it deliberately, or whether you're just an idiot with no hint of self-awareness."
This is one of my favourite points. It is the extension of "I could produce substantive arguments elaborating on my points and refuting yours, but I won't. But hey, I said that I could, that means something!"
Not an argument. Gish galloping from the quotations provided to me by the person I was responding to? Define the term you accuse me of and source somewhere I am guilty of it. Until then, the accusation is irrelevant.

Still, you have not answered the simple question: how much of my wealth do you think you deserve? When you advocate for the abolition of private property, one would do well do at least make an attempt to justify the ownership rights you assert in order to warrant/justify the aggression.
If I cite Hayek and have you respond to it, that doesn't constitute a "gish gallop". Unless you assert your own points are so dense so as to constitute a gish gallop.

Justify private property, then. On what grounds do you determine ownership of the means of production without appealing to some arbitrary, 'God-given' rights to ownership of one's own assets?
Zzzzz

This as your reason for using
" "
instead of
or even
is about as logical as everything else you've posted.

How does using " " suggest to anyone that you're not "partially quoting posts"? And what's wrong with not quoting the whole argument anyways?

I- what…?