Don't let yourself go
Don't let yourself go
Other urls found in this thread:
They are tears of joy. He's thinking 'bout that patreon money.
Pure comedy. I can understand getting worked up about something you're passionate about but you're not making a fucking speech man that's just poor theatrics in front of a shitty webcam.
Also the bourgeois individualism meme is always cringe-inducing.
Why do neo-/lit/ always talk about this guy ?
Nick Land, I can definitely understand but Peterson just seems to be like a slightly wiser anti-SJW Youtuber who happens to be older and teach psychology.
This was already in LeftyTrash and it should have stayed there.
A thread died for your shitposting, dumb Leftcom
that's some reifying bullshit
neo-/lit/ is full of Holla Forumstards
the dude obviously has some issues
Hearing this saddens me
I refuse to watch a middle-aged man bawl in front of a webcam. What's he getting worked up over?
Peterson is an ancient dust fart at this point fam. I've known people that are now dead that were more crusty.
I hope he croaks. Like a frog.
nothing personell, Pete. looks like you just got aufgehoben as part of the self-manifestation of the world spirit.
"the horrors that accompany the loss of faith in the individual."
He doesn't go in to specifics, he just starts crying after reading those words out loud. It's quite ..special. Makes me wonder how many tears he sheds for the horrors that accompany capitalism.
Must be hard for him being such an emotional and childish hypocrite.
He's 55, that's pretty middle-aged.
what an utter fucking turd
They think Jungianism/Gnosticism is deep.
But wait, isn't liberal identity politics and "political correctness" as such the logical endpoint of capitalist individualism?
That's a bit sad actually. It's like he realizes mid-sentence that the West, and with it the ideals from the Enlightenment, either have already died or never existed in the first place.
what a waste of intellect
Shhh, don't tell him. Identity politics is marxism. duh.
Peepeeson is against enlightenment ideals though.
It's a mix of both. Idpol is the worst of both worlds.
DON'T LOSE YOUR WAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Removing meme flag
To be fair, most of /lit/ is pretty left-leaning, or at least capable of seeing through JP's pseud bullshit. Threads about him get a lot of replies but it's mostly shitting on him/laughing at his fans
I dunno fam. From the threads I've seen he gets a lot of love. /lit/, like most boards, is just an extension of Holla Forums at this point.
/lit/ is complete shit nowadays. Stopped lurking a year ago, went back a couple of days ago only to find a circle jerk thread about which college is the best for getting big $$$ for your education.
I can imagine all these pseud upper class twits stroking their dicks at the idea, without self awareness. The days of infromative well thought out /lit/ are over, the time of the newfaggot is here
Kermit certainly hasn't aged well
Also I'm like 80% sure he's quoting Ayn Rand
Can someone explain why these faggots lament over "the individual" so much? What exactly is that "individuality" that could only be expressed in 20th century capitalism? At what period did it begin and at which did it end according to them?
like they always did?
The greatest meme ever made by western civilization (see "spooks"). There is no such thing as an "individual" unless you define it in legal-political terms. Philosophy uses the term subject instead which is much more complex and entails things like categories of perception, the subconscious and intersubjectivity. Stirner uses the term Ego, which is also neither an individual, nor exactly a subject, but a reactionary "oneness" that holds only itself accountable.
0ch turning out to be a failure?
I swear I've seen him cry in a few other videos too. Someone please make a compilation.
I honestly can't tell if he's putting on an act for Patreon cuckbucks or if he actually believes the bullshit he peddles.
In socialism, would you have the freedom to buy the blood of youngsters to inject into yourself? Thought not. Heh.
Didn't he also give one of those speeches about (totally not suffering) sweatshop workers being lucky to have sweatshop jobs? Really gets my noggin joggin.
What exactly does this fuck think groups are comprised of? To put it another way, if you have a unit of multiple individuals together, what would you call that?
Claiming that the individuals suffer, but the group doesn't suffer is staggeringly absurd. This guy is a tenured professor?
Didn't mean to sage
thanks op i laughed
this made my day
I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say about that.
Sweatshop workers are apparently not "the individual".
I've noticed that whatever helps profits seems to also help "the individual", but whatever hurts protist also hurts "the individual".
Really makes you wonder who "the individual" is. Hmm…
it's of a sort with this crap. They think the left looks at groups too much like organisms unto itself, which then allows you to ignore the rights of the individual, and then 100 billion killed because communism, etc.
But the worker never seems to counted as "the individual".
I can't find the video at the moment, but he says that sweatshops are good beacuse "every country has to go through that stage of development" and that they can't advance as a society without first "developing" by having sweatshops.
Yes, every country is just a little America waiting to be born. They just have to all go through their sweatshop stages, and then they call all consume 5 times their population share of the world's resources and live like burgers.
This is basically what a "therapy session" with Peterson looks like.
I just skimmed it honestly, but i get some cult leader/ loyal follower vibes.
And what do they talk about? Gender roles in media (which has warped the mind of poor loyal follower), some shit about pornography addiction, and then into the ever-impotant (but never really mentioned in public by his internet fanboys) DREAM ANALYSIS. Fucking wow
Oh I see, so once everybody have reached the next stage of development who is going to sew the clothes for everyone?
Actually, I think some of his stuff is legit, but he really should avoid talking about politics like he does or at least get his shit right.
the black guy at the end makes this perfection
The Worker doesn't exist in Bourgeois Economics and Political Philosophy, only the Consumer, and occasionally the beggar/problem prole, who needs to be converted into a consumer.
I've always wondered, if all these governments and people who are right wing to any sane person, yet are left wing to them - then what would an actual "right wing" society look like? Is ancapistan the desired state of all these morons? I can't imagine what the FAR RIGHT actually is to them; soylent green up in this motherfucker.
Peterson is like a sick dog, it needs to be put down for its own good.
1950s america probably
not the real thing, the one from the movies and tv shows (leave it to beaver shit)
without the overt racism and homophobia (in peterson's case at least, I don't consider him either of those)
looking forward to his announced AI
Jesus Christ the Solzhenitsyn dick sucking is endless with this guy.
Wasn't the guy a fucking Nazi sympathiser who wanted to take Russia back to Serfdom too?
I don't know about Nazi sympathizer, but I do know he was definitely a monarchist who wanted everyone to suck Tsar dick. So yes he wanted to take Russia back to Serfdom.
I know this ain't Peterson, but this video can also be put up there with Peterson. Also, Gleen Beck has cried many times on air before.
He was also butthurt that the US stopped killing Vietnamese people and attacked the anti-war movement for opposing the war.
So yeah, he was a reactionary shit.
Something about him crying through his clearly pre-written pseudo intellectual jargon fills me with joy. To think, all of this started because he doesn't like trannies. And yet, leftists are suppose to be the crybabies.
i mean ivan denisovitch was pretty good on capturing the day to day life in a gulag and is a pretty good book but other than that solyenitzhzhnduin was a bit of a dick.
The second one is surprisingly good.
At least he manages to say that Malthusian ideas are wrong.
Although he is a firm believer in idealism, he might be horrified to figure out that individuals in seeking their maximum utility organize into groups of mutual aid, thus becoming something more than mere individuals. But he is probably unwilling to undergo this negation, and then negation of negation and so on. And third one shows that he does not understand what Marxism is.
First vid: "Burn the postmodernists, also marxists are perverts wanting power because they denounce people in power trust me I am a psychoanalyst"
Second vid: "I don't believe in global warming because it's anti-capitalist"
Third vid: "Let me suck Solzhenytsin and cry over the fabled 100000000 deads"
and basically everyone else
jesus I can't believe how dogmatic this board can be.
This man is not far-right or even right. He's the common man who understands why modern people are so depressed/anxious/suicidal/lost. He's an idol of the right but that doesn't make him our enemy.
He's studied psychology/history most of his life. if you don't want to listen to him or try countering him, but instead mock him for an emotional letter, that's fine. But I've heard many of my once leftist friends give him a chance and they did an ideological 180 in just a month or less.
Your friends are retarded liberals, I guess. Because a communist worth the name wouldn't fall for the poor man's sophistry this pseud spews.
Would it be easier to convince a man to do something for his own gain, or would it be easier to convince him to do something for the gain of his community?
False dichotomy. I can benefit myself while benefiting a community. Further, if I don't benefit the community, I don't benefit myself, and if I don't benefit myself, I don't benefit the community.
I believe the majority of people would never go out of their way without immediate benefit to them. Do you think the majority of people in New York City are charitable and selfless?
Communist has/will never work in largely populated areas.
But seriously, like most academics who talk outside their field of expertise he constantly wrong, his statements on "postmodern neo-Marxism" are just the tip of his shit pile. Really anything he says about political theory and philosophy is can be safely ignored, he's wrong far too often too justify the personality cult surrounding him.
fuck u nerd
you use passionate words like "shit pile" and "cult" but you don't list a single counter to his statements on postmodern neo-marxism. Why bother posting, other than to keep the dogmatic echo going just a bit further?
Yeah but this board is populated with intellectual-yet-idiot midwits that sincerely believe the sort of personal charity/aid that happens in small tribes/rural townships can easily be scaled up into megacities with populations in the millions, its just *schniff* capitalishm that ish the problem *schniff*
"post-modern neo-marxism" is literally an oxymoron, I don't have to refute anything. What he calls "postmodern neo-marxism" is just typical liberal social justice completely unrelated to Marxist philosophy.
and not only that, but post modernism has much more in common with Nietzsche than Marx which is ironic since Peterson is heavily influenced by Nietzsche
How the fuck do you think most people here advocate organizing the economy and government?
Here's a hint: it's not "we should all just work and give each other free shit and be nice, man."
Especially, not marsocs like me.
How many of those liberals sport a Che Guevara shirt and proudly call themselves marxists?
Please list 3 things that improved after being "socialized"
I'm saying that you're dogmatic fuckwits that refuse to believe that there are any innate limits within human behaviour, and so posit that for any problem like the one I mentioned (i.e. the social pathologies created by ultra-dense urban living) the solution is "obviously" socialism, and work backwards to find that capitalism is the reason why the problem happened in the first place - not that humans were never designed to live in million-strong throngs in megacities with unnatural levels of population churn
You know since you are going to be an idiot and I can tell that you don't know what you're talking about I'm just going to pull this response to Peterson's argument before you can post that one video I've seen 5,000,000 times.
b-b-b-but the meanie capitalist pig yankkkees undermined those states! brb, shitposting about how Nazi Germany's defeat indicates how shit of an ideology Nazism was
Yes, the problems is just human nature, so we should just return to the past where it was good. See why calling you imbeciles reactionaries is not wrong? In fact, the label of post-modernism applies better to you, since you are much better at defending the present state of things.
whether these were improved with socialization or not doesn't matter. They've failed. To praise socialization for their subjective "improvements" is like saying a bandaid helped for a while but the patient still died because stitches would have been the better option.
They can call themselves whatever they want, but if they don't understand Marxist analysis or what it advocates economically (and it doesn't advocate what you people think it does) then they cannot be considered marxists. That would be like me saying I'm a Nazi just because I like their aesthetics.
On top of all that, socialism does not begin or end with Marx.
Define socialized because that can mean communal ownership, cooperative ownership, or nationalization.
Ignore this clown. Everyone hates tankies.
You don't even understand what non-tankies want when we say "socialism". Socialism isn't supposed to solve the possible psychological issues of post-industrial modernity, it's about questioning how property does and should work and ensuring people receive the full fruit of their labor.
If you see a tank or Stalin as their flag you should rightfully ignore and mock them.
We can't go back, so the best course of action is to design a society that best meets humans where they are, not attempt to force humanity into something its not.
Considering how "non-tankies" squabble over practically everything and anything related to achieving socialism, or how a socialist society would "actually" operate, I don't even think you know what you mean by "socialism".
Good, then we agree communism is the way.
That's because socialism is not a monolithic ideology, but rather a category of political thought who's tendencies share a few key agreements as major tenants. Tankies want the Soviet Union and similar countries, Anarcho-Communists want a return of paleolithic gift economies, Mutualists (what my flag represents) want a cooperative free market. On top of a bunch of other ideas that have varying similarity to eachother. Sorry if leftism is more complex than you've been lead to believe.
You know what I call them a fucking minority? A minority who has almost no fucking influence on society that is way to overblown by people on the right. Also, there's this picture I want you to just stare at for about one hour. It really makes you think doesn't it?
Gee it's not like people using Nazi's Germany failure as an example are I don't know using it as an example of what the Neo Nazi's consider a failed state if they keep using how all socialists societies. BUt hey let's just omit that all together because leftist are hypocrites ha ha ha! Ain't it so funny and true! Everybody who doesn't suck Peterson's cock is just an idiot!
Roads, education and healthcare
Hmm nice contradiction you got there.
not even close to true
Why are you letting this retard derail a perfectly good thread? Send him somewhere else or just ban him.
The USSR manages to go from a feudal backwater to an industrialized world power in 20 years, and Russia today would likely still be an agrarian backwater if it had never existed
Yugoslavia was the height of wealth and power for the Balkan states. Even today they're still malignant shitholes.
Cuba today is far better off than it was under the boot of the United States and the Batista regime.
I don't know where this toll road meme came from, but where I live toll roads are cheaply built shit.
Is this some Midwest meme because y'all live in the worst on neoliberal shitholes where infrastructure maintenance basically gets no budget, so shitty toll roads look good in comparison?
Really made me think.
Healthcare is a service, with competition, which is how the US is number 1.
of those treated, yes we are. Why do you think UK/Canadian/etc citizens travel here for serious operations?
not an argument. Holla Forums is not your echochamber. i'm a leftist too, just not as mindlessly dogmatic as you
What a retarded metric to judge a county's healthcare system on. Why are burgerstanis so retarded?
Is it a good system if nobody can get it?
Just come out and say it, you want the government to raise your taxes?
Most of the rest of Eastern Europe and the Eurasian steppe are still agrarian backwaters even with Soviet influence. How do you figure the Tsar would have done any better, especially with the boyars still kicking around?
There's already a ban on who gets to survive. It's just on the poor who can't afford the treatment.
I see no tears for them.
Also, nationalized healthcare systems cost less in government funding than le free market meme.
These things are ESPECIALLY good. Not because of their exclusivity, but the quality which directly correlates to their cost.
To socialize it is to bring it to a subpar level at BEST.
Lmao and now we're at the "muh taxes" part of the argument. Why do we let burgers on this site again?
where do you get the funds for infrastructure/healthcare/nutritional demands in your "utopia?"
Exactly. It's almost like capitalism only ever produces good things for the elite. Thank you for you honesty user. Marx would be proud.
You're not even a social democrat if you defend America's health care system. Admit you're a neoliberal and you probably are Clitonite in denial like every Jordan Peterson fan. It's fine to admit you suck the status quo's dick.
This is why socialists (democrats) are shitting their pants at Trump not wanting to bail them out with the billions they were expecting from obamacares policies?
Have you ever read Marx. I posted one pamphlet of his a few posts ago. Read him.
Anyway: a revolution abolishes the present bourgeois state. For the rest read Cockshott.
Is this the le clean your room man?
holy fuck you are a brainlet
Kind of like what the rich are doing to this planet at this current isn't it?
Well. I guess it's time to bring back classical slave society, boys.
Please, if possible, explain to me how we go from the US today to what you want, without tearing it down. To keep even a single brick standing is to admit that our current system (based on the Constitution) is not flawed.
B T F O
The revolution destroys the previous bourgeois state and institutes a proletariat state for the suppression of the bourgeois class.
Slaves were forbidden from exiting their servitude. What's keeping you from financial success?
And as far as medical care goes, if you believe the care provided to even the most basic insurance carrier is less than what the majority can expect in countries with "free" healthcare, then you're being dishonest with yourself by not researching how their healthcare system functions and the type of treatment their citizens get.
Democrats are right wing pretenders whose most "leftist" policy in the last decade is a heritage foundation, market solution healthcare plan. Why do you think the Republicans are having so much trouble passing their repeal/replace? Because we already have their fucking republican healthcare plan. You are a massive dipshit who needs to unplug yourself from the constant stream of CNN/Fox retardation, but you're an american so it's unlikely.
You do realize that socialized healthcare doesn't require the government to own the hospitals, right? Not to mention you have no evidence that competition is what makes US healthcare as high quality as it is.
I agree that a competitive coop medical industry with free markets (primarily free of patents) would be make it affordable for pretty much everyone.
How the fuck are gated communities at all related to the point you're making?
Those people "succeeded" by stealing the profits produced by their laborers.
Make every business a worker's coop, or consumer coop when a natural monopoly applies
You have officially gone full retard. The constitution says nothing about capitalism so I don't know why you're bringing that into this debate. More importantly how does a few good ideas in a system mean that the whole system is flawless? This statement alone is the dumbest , most intellectually dishonest thing I've read in months.
But tearing the United States down is exactly what we want to do.
Progress can't be made until the US has been completely dissolved as a political entity, with a DotP (probably a federation of socialist council republics) in its place.
That's a horribly self-defeating system.
This statement says nothing about the nature of private vs public medical payments, just the quality of US medical care.
The creators of X and the workers who make X are both proles. I bet you think Elon Musk built the Space X rockets and Steve jobs made the iPhone, when in reality they were made by wage-laboring engineers.
You misinterpreted the argument. The state is destroyed, yes but it begins to wither away when there is no class suppression to be done against the bourgeois (right now it suppresses the proletariat). Read State and Revolution.
Even then, the bourgeois don't need to be killed anyway.
What did the capitalist "create" exactly?
Oops, I forgot to mention that it the next state which withers away. We regard nothing as eternal: the only constant thing is becoming.
Wew there lad. Don't even pretend you believe in that, considering that the counties with the highest social mobility are the ones with the biggest SocDem welfare states and economic equality. For your lot, the "meritocracy" meme is the secular equivalent of the old Great Chain of Being, a justification of the status quo given from on high.
And, yes, American healthcare service is shit in comparison to single-payer and socialized equivalents. American healthcare is middling at best, while we pay by far the most for it.
Not to mention how important state funding is in modern innovation.
That just about summarizes how innovation in the modern world. Funded by the state, developed and mass produces by labor, distributed through markets. The "job creator" just a parasite who takes the credit and money.
The creators are the workers.
If ever there was a time when entrepreneurs made anything worthwhile, that time has long passed. Now innovation and creativity is done by professional engineers and programmers. At best all the entrepreneur meme has done is that stupid infomercial crap like you see on the Shark Tank.
Confirmed pleb. Stirner's Ego should be rightly called "unique one," Ego is a mistranslation. The big mistake though is not interpreting Stirner as a Hegelian, and not understanding the unique one as Stirner's interpretation of Hegel's free thinking subject.
Jesus, you people really are retarded.
Go ahead, write pages of drivel trying to refute me. Since you believe in the labor theory of value, I'm sure you think you'll make a fortune from all that work.
the guy converting leftists into rightwingers isn't "our" enemy
You've already been refuted multiple times over, you're just so dense it isn't getting through to you.
It is undeniable that Marx wouldn't have supported the Soviet Union. While he was vague about what socialism should be he did make reference to examples of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat would look like, specifically the not at all authoritarian Paris Commune.
Not even necessary to be a leftist.
Seriously, what part of "socialism doesn't begin or end with Marx" do you not understand?
yeah cry more bitch because your world is over. it's time for mine.
You know if you spend like 100 posts getting BTFO and rightly called a retard by people who know much, much more than you on the subject you're discussing, maybe "no ur the retard xD" isn't the sharp, witty comeback you think it is
Removing commie scum
bitch when no anarchy likes you it means you're full retard anarcho capitalism is the ONLY popular authoritaran "anarchy" that exists. It's the only one that contradicts itself.
you're worse than tankies with their anime deilusions, you're even deeper into la-la land.
HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO ME
I MADE MY MISTAKES
GOT NOWHERE TO RUN
BUT LIFE GOES ON AS I'M FADING AWAY
I'M SICK OF THIS LIFE
I JUST WANNA SCREAM
HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN TO ME
Yeah Solzhenitsyn was an absolute fucker. Not only was he a notorious liar (even spouting insane shit sometimes like that 60 million people died in the Soviet Gulags which was half the population of the USSR at the time he said it), he was an anti-semite and a Nazi sympathiser, and bitched hard about the anti-war movement in the US like has stated.
His own wife even said that she was amazed at how popular the Gulag Archipelago became because it was actually a work of fiction and mostly bullshit and didn't accurately represent the condition of Soviet gulags at all.
Wow uh, now I'm starting to think he's not just a moron but actually unhinged.
lel, you can see him break character a little bit at the end.
He's either pretentious as fuck or putting on a show for his patreon doners.
Probably both tbh.
Sometimes I giggle alone randomly during the day while thinking about this post. Thank you for this, user.
What more pathetic, him fake crying/acting or him actually crying?
Dude, I literally said I can understand the appeal of Nick Land, and I like him actually. He is one of our best adversary since he has read and understood Marx and just think there is nothing wrong with M->C->M', and that we need to push the process harder. Not to mention, he is attractive for people like me who are into avant-garde/alternative arts in the same way Guy Debord is.
But Peterson on the other hand seems to use the same old misconceptions of Marxist theory to push his agenda. I need to pay more attention to him, but from what I've seen in this video of Douglas Lain BTFOing him, he is a boring enemy (youtube.com
wow, so Peterson is wrong? Can you please elaborate as to why he is wrong and in what ways?
Not a single person who says they disagree with the LTV has ever actually understood it. NOT ONE
I WANT TO FUCK CONTRAPOINTS SO BAD
This is the towering intellect you refer to to attack Peterson's critiques?
You really are cultists.
Your post assumes that anyone knows or even cares who or what this Peterson guy is or discusses. Perhaps you should reconsider posting in the future.
Your post apparently cannot discern higher numbers from lower ones. Purchasing goods and services must be difficult for you.
The fact you think crying about body count when talking about any political ideology at all as a serious argument is just sad.
That's an odd statement, given that I never brought up Marx. Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension instead of trying to appear smart to strangers on the internet.
Sorry I thought that you were the Peterson fanboy that keeps thinking that making snarky remarks is arguing. I fucked up badly.
**Also, since the Peterson fanboy is probably going to read this just remember before you say "no U" that were both hypocrites in this situation due to how much you did it to.
And what, exactly, did I "do", user?
Has anyone got the Kermit webm?
Is understanding his argument that hard for you ?
He saying that Marx himself hasn't killed anybody. Yes, people who were (or claimed to be) influenced by him did. Does that mean that we should throw our Nietzsche books to the nearest garage can because Nazis appropriated his Übermensch concept ? No. Therefore, why should we dismiss Marx for that very same reason ?
Why thank you my good sir
Seems like Holla Forums really isn't satire. And all the time I thought this board is supposed to be fun satire.
The cuck needs to despook himself and read Dugin.
Yeah he'd totally demolish us alright.
Damn nigger you really are desperate for (You)s.
Genocide is justified against classcucks because they deserve to die
Motherfucker if you really believe there's a conspiracy of a whole bunch of post modern """""""""Marxists"""""""""" then you're the fucking delusional one that has no semblance of reality.
I know that feel bruh
wtf I'm reactionary now!
How does this invalidate his suffering and experiences, btw?
This guy is the personification of most of the "leftists" in this thread.
It means that he deserved whatever pain he suffered and is likely a liar.
REAL leftism is promoting traditional social mores, christian morality, natural hierarchy and opposing redistributionist policies, who would've thought?
Mate just google it. He was gulaged in 1946 for his Pro-Nazi activity, he thought Hitler could "liberate" Russia from Communist rule and was part of one of the anti-stalinist groups that wanted to collaborate with the Nazis to dissolve the USSR from within. After he moved to the US he was smart enough to shut the fuck up about his Nazi loving to not anger all his Jewish supporters but that didn't stop him bitching about the 1974 Portuguese people's revolution or support brutal dictators like Pinochet and Suharto. In his book "Two Hundred Years Together" he dedicated three whole chapters to the "Jewish" role in the secret police purges of Soviet Russia. He even stated that in the gulags that the Russian Jews were "treated better" which has been proved is total bullshit.
Because the man was an actual traitor who would have happily given his country over to the Nazis just to end "muh communism". The cunt should have died in that gulag. Which is the great irony of all his writings about how many millions of people died in gulags when he didn't.
no we're serious and we're coming for that toothbrush
It doesn't. The fact that his suffering and experiences are fictional is what invalidates them.
If the USSR was 1/10th as oppressive and brutal as he said it was he would not have lived to finish writing his fairy tales.
Also on the subject of Solzhenitsyn being a lying piece of shit I remember reading in the Gulag Archipelago that in it, someone gets 10 years for stealing a spool of thread while he gets 5-8 years for being a fucking treasonist.
How is this clown tenured?
The latter. Being able to cry at will is a skill, and doing it to get money from people is more sinister than pathetic.
How can I convince >>>/improve/ that he's a retard?
Solzhenitsyn on the Vietnam war:
This fuck wanted the US to just keep fighting and dropping bombs on those people, I guess, forever. If they wound up wiping out every last person in Vietnam at least it wouldn't be commie. Damn those pesky anti-war people.
Sure, but how does that invalidate the experiences? Are you saying they never happened and he lies? Or that he just wasn't there?
Sounds like how Lysenkoism was combatting anti-Soviet bias. You need to source your claims, not me.
Are you denying Jewish representation in Soviet Russia? It's established fact that they were present in many positions throughout the early years, up until the Stalinist purges. The Jewish population never passed 3% in Russia. Quote is from Pinkus' work on Soviet Jews.
The middle class weren't fans and people who wanted to criticize the state didn't like it when the state tossed them in camps.
How so? Where did you hear this from?
Just to add onto that, even the Wiki's entries feel the need to use a Jewish star indicator because it's ahistorical to deny the existence of relevant Jews in positions of power. Jews like Trotsky and the Red Army played relevant roles in events like the Red Terror.
hes never had anything to let go of
Holy shit, this is hilarious. Whomever made this, great job.
God damn, guys.
Don't come back until you've read it.
I'm familiar with Sousa, spouting the usual debunked ahistorical gibberish.
Not an argument.
Neither is an unsourced op-ed.
How are his experiences so valid to you in the first place? Just because he said so? Can you actually prove that anything he wrote in the Gulag Archipelago is true?
Nigga is a 5 second google search really that much of a hardship for you? Even Wikipedia tells you why he was arrested
No I'm highlighting how he was a fucking anti-semite, the entire book Two Hundred Years Together is an anti-semitic work par excellence, I invite you to read it. Good job dodging my comment about what he said on Gulaged Jews btw
Yeah cus that totally justifies supporting another authoritarian regime that wants to genocide your entire ethnicity and destroy your country just so you can get rid of the Soviets
Your own source: en.wikipedia.org
So source the claim first if it's so easy to prove.
None of this is an argument addressing Jewish roles during the early Soviet regime.
You just called him an anti-Semite, then I asked you for a page number when you said this:
Tells you just how much more evil the Soviets were, then, doesn't it?
actually, tells me how much more evil AS was
who is this beauty?
Why deflect when our topic of discussion is pretty grounded: massive loss of life and time directly caused by Communist policies which were relayed by Solzhenitsyn, to name one.
>Your own source: en.wikipedia.org
Not an argument. I never said he wasn't imprisoned I originally said that his documentation of what he witnessed in prison is mostly fictitious because the man is a liar. I'm challenging you to prove what he said he witnessed in the Gulag Archipelago.
You can't strawman that hard boy. I myself said I don't deny the Jewish roles in the USSR so stop going back to that. I used Two Hundred Years Together as an example of his Anti-Semitism
What does the spool of thread shit have to do with Anti-Semitism? I don't even have the book anymore so I can't find the page but I distinctly remember it from the book. Have you actually read it?
Yeah cuz the Soviets wanted to literally genocide the entire Slavic population right? Lmao
AS was a liar and propagandist though, not a source of history. Communist policies caused the loss of one life too few i think.
It is quite funny that this guy takes Solzhenitsyn, the fascist rat at face value as if he was a historian, but Mario Sousa is bad and not believable. Of course, he won't say why.
Then the very article you just sourced is dismissed as it is not pertinent to the discussion.
On what basis do you level this accusation? Outside of ideology, you have not presented a tenable position beyond "I don't think it's plausible, I don't want to believe his testimony". Besides the blatant appeal to personal incredulity, you are dismissing one claim for its bias while rallying behind another's overt bias.
Pretty sure it's already been proven because the entire point is that his experience wasn't standalone, and the gulag camp system became commonplace to toss "anti-Soviets" (whatever that meant) into the regime. Already said this again, I'll say it once more: PEOPLE WANT FREEDOM. They want to be able to speak freely without fear of being tossed into a camp.
Some more resources: en.wikipedia.org
Calling somebody an "anti-Semite" isn't an argument. The entire point is that he did not critique Jews for being Jews, it was because of the policies. The pejorative falls flat on its face considering the fact that he would have had no problem with any Jews had they not had nefarious roles in state-sanctioned murder.
It has to do with the claim you made. You alluded to a page stating something, and I asked for the page number. I'm asking you for evidence of what you think you remember so I can check, and you shift the burden of proof on me while doubling down on your denial of context.
Well, they did. Millions died, freedom was stripped. It would be a laughable point and an obvious oxymoron to reference economic freedom and the USSR. People hated it, that's why Marxist principles have failed: workers reject them because they are archaic and have already been debunked, both by the requirement for markets and the irrational idealism failing each time it was applied en masse.
On what basis do you determine his testimony to be false, beyond arguments from personal incredulity and ideological motivations?
Mainly because it is ahistorical revisionism and that he's an ideologue.
Are you even going to bother arguing or are you so high on ideology that you believe there is anything that can be written, especially on history, free from ideology?
You are the most ideological imbecile. Read Zizek.
Anyway, you have shown yourself to be the same ban evading faggot as always. Take your report and this espressostalinist.com
Don't get assmad about the name and images, just read the fucking thing: it has sources.
Pot calling the kettle black, appealing to Soviet propaganda as the basis for dismissal of testimony, LOL.
You've yet to even have the slightest inkling as to what my ideology even is. I've made no claim on any market-based system, or any social stances: nothing of the sort. I've only referenced anti-totalitarianism, yet you can read minds and have deduced what the ideology I believe in is. What is my ideological inclination, then? How do you determine this?
Such gems as: Like her other laws it is the outcome of cold logic working from certain premises looked upon as self-evident with the same assurance as that of the mathematician who accepts the axioms of geometry.
Because Lysenkoism was "self-evident", so self-evident that "dude biology lmao" was dismissed as being 'anti-Soviet'. Appealing to Soviet propaganga and regurgitating the debunked ideology only shows how gullible people will always be led first to the slaughter. Keep reporting me, though, that will start the worker's revolution and turn the tides: silencing criticism of your information.
There are some things he claims that are his own personal experiences, which nobody can prove or disprove. Then there are other things he claims, like how many people went through the prisons or were killed there, that can be disproved.
The latter have conclusively been shown to be wild fabrications that all go in one biased direction. Why then, should I have any reason to believe the former claims about his own experiences?
The dude was a fascist nutter, had an agenda and had a gift for fiction writing. Not to hard to figure out what happens when you put those together.
Are you going to for an argument? Or through shit?
So why ask me to prove it? You're admitting to asking a loaded question, if that was you asking it. Similar to this, it is also personally experienced.
Why put people in prison for disagreeing with you? For being 'anti-Soviet'? What a convenient catchall, not like other systems deliberately founded their constitution to avoid such concentrated state power.
Opting to choose the objective path… biased in the other direction.
Whole issue is that all the other testimony, paired with the common knowledge of anti-Soviet measures like the same ones you reference, lead to repression of personal liberties.
Here's a challenge: define fascist and explain how, with citations of his work or quotations of his beliefs, he was a fascist.
You have to be an idealist to believe currency is irrelevant or that market-based systems are oppressive.
It's pretty clear, it has been debunked by its own inability to reproduce itself properly. There are no applications of Communism left around, it always fails. It's a self-refuting concept: abolishing class is impossible and any evidence of its possibility relies on ad hoc explanations.
How the fuck did you come to that conclusion?
This is literally just you going "NO U!", and you're not even being consistent with it either. I originally challenged you to prove the claims made in the Gulag Archipelago because you were accepting them without question while challenging those that denied them. You're the one defending your position, so you have to provide proof in its defence as well.
Not an argument. I'm asking you to prove SPECIFICALLY the claims that Solzhenitsyn made about the Gulag system. The one which I'm most curious about is his claim that 60 million people died in them. Which was half the population of the USSR at the time.
When did I make it an argument? It was the original accusation I made. Also he would have had no problem with Jews if it weren't for the USSR? That's like saying a skinhead would have no problem with Blacks if he didn't think they were all subhuman scum. What kind of an argument is that?
What denial of context? You specifically misunderstood the context in the first place? And yeah nice job dodging my other question as well asking if you'd actually read the book.
Are you fucking serious?
When was that ever in question, we're talking about genocide? You strawman so fucking much.
You get reported because you have shit up this board dozens of times by engaging in blatant sophistry, trolling like you do here. When presented with information, you continue engaging in sophistry by trying to muddy the waters and deflecting everytime. Not going to waste my time with your autistic ass anymore. I hope you get rangebanned permanently for shitposting so much.
your an idiot and a reactionary apologist. Rats like you deserve no sympathy.
I didn't ask you any such question. Some other user maybe.
Being pro-Nazi and wanting them to take over your own country is a good start. But I decline your challenge. Too much of everyone's time has already been wasted on him already. The Soviets should have necked him and saved the world a lot of time and delusions.
You admit that your own source is not defendable as it is 'not an argument'.
No, I'm attacking your overt bias and extending the same criticism you level against him… to your claims.
Already addressed this above.
The testimony isn't standalone, that's the whole point.
Already linked you to some more pieces of information corroborating his claims that gulags were shit places using forced labour for "political dissidents". Sounds wonderful.
I cannot read the information for you. You can either choose to read the literature to even realize what you are arguing against, or not. Again, you're asking a loaded question ("prove this personal experience as being based in empirical evidence") and denying the context within which the anecdotes stand on.
It wasn't a flash flood, it was over a period of decades. The figure is deliberately shrouded (hence why it ranges +/- 15 or so million) because of the whole Iron Curtain and its state secrecy. They weren't exactly open about their affairs.
Injecting a misused term as "an example of anything" isn't an argument.
The 'skinhead' would have no problem with blacks if they weren't within his proximity: they are all about racial segregation, like the Islamic black Africans. He would have no issue with Jews if they weren't in positions of power and influence. You're making a circular argument of some nonsense point nobody claims. He didn't 'hate' Jews because of genetic causes, it is precisely because of their actions.
Still haven't responded to the sources I've linked to you on the forced labour camps. Others besides "anti-semites" confirm their repression of human life.
Literally not an argument, asking a question is not a point. By targeting a specific group of people, they are committing genocide against them. Class-based, in this case.
Strawman: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
Relies on me levelling a position AGAINST YOU. I stated (without your quotemining) the following: "Yeah cuz the Soviets wanted to literally genocide the entire Slavic population right?"
"Well, they did. Millions died, freedom was stripped. It would be a laughable point and an obvious oxymoron to reference economic freedom and the USSR. People hated it, that's why Marxist principles have failed: workers reject them because they are archaic and have already been debunked, both by the requirement for markets and the irrational idealism failing each time it was applied en masse."
I never attributed that to a position you made, it is, by definition, not a strawman.
See above. I am making a claim on Marxist policies, not attributing it to your position. Never called you a Marxist.
Come on Jordan, don't you have a class to teach or something?
It's "Jewish Bolshevism" inso far as Jews were disproportionately represented and, among other minorities, held positions of power and significant influence despite having a very low percentage of the overall population, kind of like Stalin, a Georgian, becoming supreme ruler.
It is also of Jewish origin considering the fact that the bedrock of inspiration for Lenin, a quarter-Jew, was from Marx, himself ancestrally Jewish, inspired by Moses Hess, a prominent Zionist.
What information? Your screenshot is some person arguing about propagandized culture and appealing to the circular argument of anti-x/prejudice while simultaneously appealing to Marxist propaganda. Also making preposterous and demonstrably untrue claims dismissing proportions like: in fact they were a stark minority in the Bolshevik party as a whole. Yeah, because the entirety of the party consisted of many thousands of people, and Jews were a little under 1% of the population. The assertion is that in the higher positions, Jews were disproportionately represented. He even gives credence to the assertion, hinting to his knowledge of Jews like Trotsky or Sverdlov. Even the very first Politburo, three of the six positions consisted of Jews or half-Jews.
Idealism is rooted in a non-existent reality, kind of like appealing to a worker's revolution that falls apart within a few months, like all the "successful examples" you provide when I ask for them.
Include the next sentence: You're admitting to asking a loaded question, if that was you asking it. Similar to this, it is also personally experienced.
A Fascist is not a 'pro-Nazi' any more than a coherent definition of a Democrat isn't an 'anti-Republican'. Actually provide a proper definition.
I love it, keep on making excuses for dipping out when you can't even shit out a definition of a pejorative you reference.
Reminds me of Orwell: It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley’s broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
Finally, you say something true among all the bullshit. The communist truth is inexistent today, and must be brought into being through a political event.
Communist ideas have already been refuted by history. People want economic freedoms, sorry.
Not an argument. Communism works and has not been refuted.
this is not an argument you small brained sub human
you really are a stupid mongrel aren't you?
You're right, it's your own examples of 'success' that aren't arguments.
Nope, it's the workers.
But it worked in many several places. Your argument is immediately wrong.
I'm sure the Chinese can attest to this.
Oh, is your specific idea about Chinese application of Marxist belief better? Why don't you try? Oh wait…
Jesus are you actually gonna point out why "communism" fell, or supply an argument to if the soviet union was actually even socialist? I bet you have no clue what either of those even are.
You are so pathetic, you where destroyed in this thread and resorted to sophistry and ban evading. How useless can Peterfag cultists like you even get?
that was the Khmer rouge. At least try to hide your I*Q of 30.
 for that . It worked. The truth is latent, it must be brought into being again.
Don't bother trying to post arguments. Just get a laugh at it through applying the same tactics to his shitposting.
Many leftists are anti-Stalinist, but you already know that. You constantly argue in bad faith. When pressed, you fall back on strawman arguments as if their existence alone is somehow an argument in itself.
You also repeatedly take the stance of somehow very conveniently not ascribing to any particular ideology, so you don't have to defend your statements' validity in comparison to other ideologies.
You're a troll & should be banned for wasting everyone's time. No amount of solid points debunking your statements are ever entertained by you. You're just a shitposter, plain & simple. You have no purpose here.
Why should some one respond to you with an argument if you never made one to beguine with? You haven't supported any of your claims and resorted to shitposting. Why should I then approach you with sincerity if you are genetically unable to respond with sincerity?
M8, I'm not him, calm down.
EVERY ONE IS GETTING SOME HEAT MY NIQQA
Cannot sustain itself or reproduce conditions for existence. Markets and economic freedom are things people want. USSR cannot be socialist, workers didn't control the MoP. Socialism cannot exist, workers can never fully control the MoP.
It goes to show you how evil the Soviets were.
I'm referencing intellectuals who cared enough to critique the methods.
That's the point. Currency cannot exist in a communist system. Re-read the post. It's: dude this one example where currency exists is totally Communist!!!
It is a deliberate joke because no system can exist without currency.
See above about the Great Leap Forward.
nus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat.
I'm discussing a period of time involving Stalinist repression, not all leftists. Stop projecting.
Still cannot fulfil the burden of proof or define what a fascist is…
192,000 years of the modern human society were absent of currency. Or really more than currency: (private) property, money-capital, wage-labour, and so on. It took some pretty specific developments into how humanity relates to labour and production for these things to, and only primitively, start getting incorporated into some specific parts of society. Over time, these have been more or less apparent, sometimes entirely removed, sometimes even completely rejected. It's only 150 years ago, during a thing called the English revolution, that most of what we have today (generalized commodity production) started taking over the globe. Here's a guy quickly making a rundown of the latter, which is supported by all recorded accounts of history: youtu.be
On the subject of currency itself, that is not even 4,000 years old (commodities as such, without a money-capital currency or even gold commodity, existed standalone before that), and were again only used selectively and between their first appearance until now have vanished, been of minimal relevance or have even been suppressed for long periods of time where alternate modes of facilitating allocation of goods and services existed.
The best Marxist take on this all can be found if you read Marx's classic: Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Good luck!
Point taken: leftoids generally don't have a coherent understanding of what fascism and use it as a buzzword. Underneath it all, though, lies reality, within which fascism may be properly characterized and defined. See: libcom.org
Now I'd like to know where your arguments really are. Communism for us always already there: it's the expression of personified labour (the proletariat; a worker) reacting to his conditions under capitalism. Communism's death is only as certain as capitalism's death; the society emerging from this communist movement is the only thing that can meaningfully and distinctly supersede capitalism. It's not for sure that it will; perhaps our species will forever go on under generalized commodity production, or may even annihilate itself because value production compels it into wars, morbid levels of scarcity higher than the standard systemic amounts of scarcity, and so on, but communism will be there for as long as capitalism is there.
economic freedom is worker ownership of the means of production
not the ability to competitively exploit people
This is not an argument, it is a statement,
same goes for this
It is a deliberate joke because no system can exist without currency.
This would more be an argument against your own position.
Look where that got them. Last 200 years is when human civilization truly excelled, in terms of technological advancement.
Referencing systems themselves. Of course archaic tribes with no semblance of civilized governance will be communistic.
We're all the better for it.
What a preposterous source. How can the totalitarian dictator be beholden to the big business powers if the state controls all? You're thinking of corporatism.
Tell your overlords to stop banning me.
Not an argument. False sense of entitlement doesn't make others accountable for you, nor does it provide substantiation for your claim to what you think you deserve.
It's called an assertion. It is an assertion rooted in belief, as there are no examples of a Communist system that didn't devolve into totalitarianism, engage in trade with currency, or 'muh imperialism'. Same goes with socialism, it is not supported by any historical events. Its internal inconsistencies of misplaced/unwarranted egalitarianism always cause its implosion because individuals want freedom, and freedom results in disparities.
It's poking fun at the ridiculous and unsubstantiated claims of 'we can operate without a currency, just don't call it that'. And how the position is always to bounce back to "well, archaic tribesmen used to not have currency, so…"
I will never understand this image. Is it supposed to make fun of the caveman? He just single-handedly invented civilization.
We're all the better for it.
Not an argument. False sense of entitlement doesn't make others accountable for you, nor does it provide substantiation for your claim to what you think you deserve.
You have not substantiated any of your arguments and posted just incoherent, rambling and ahistorical delusions. Communism works. It's factual.
The last 200 years have been filled with more death, inequity and general human suffering than ever before, all in the name of property and value. The simple fact that there are people, mostly workers, fighting against it, entirely out of my control or my plans, speaks volumes about how there is a more than apparent desire awakened in them to want to change this, from the smallest of reformist desire to total overthrows and the drawing of a new board upon which to play.
Within those same years there were primtive communistic societies that knew how to do farming or even masonry.
Hot take. I'ma let you and your opinions sit there while the world goes its way. Like the idealist, the Petersonite desires what he does as if it was already there.
What are States and corporations made of? Magic, or human beings?
Why? You're autistic enough to come back yourself every single time. I was already not in favor of interrupting your spergouts but knowing how dedicated you are to perpetuating them I'm even less in favor of it. Go straight ahead.
you're a neet aren't you
how can you not understand how jobs work
It's addressing the non-sequitur of 'exploitation if I don't exert effort to provide for myself'. Might be because you lack self-awareness, but the point is that the caveman has an entitlement complex if he thinks it's all just 'gibs'.
On human society and advancement within the last 200 years: britannica.com
On prehistoric civilizations being communistic and currency:
Again, burden of proof is on you. Tribes 100,000 years ago didn't have currency unless you can source that they did. Trade is not currency. Here's the history of currency: en.wikipedia.org
We are all better because of economic freedoms and changes in the last 200 years: en.wikipedia.org
On corporatism in your quote, it stated: The interpretation of fascism as an instrument of big business has been classic since Daniel Guerin.
That's an ass-backwards definition.
Again, burden of proof is on you to cite your definitions, properly, instead of quoting revisionists.
I already attached a screenshot of the bans you hand out. For 90 years, mind you. Seems like they deleted those, too.
I don't need a citation when I'm making a counter-argument to your entitlement complex. Do you know what a citation is or are you just nervously spamming it instead of actually addressing the point. I'll repeat myself because I never made reference to a source like "experts say wheat production plummeted in 1966…". That's when you ask for a citation, not when I ask you for a justified framework from which you can derive the concept of exploited working classes (and dismissing claims which are non-sequiturs).
According to who? On what basis do you determine this success? Are there any examples of Communism alive today? What happened to those other ones? Why allow only retrospective analysis instead of assessing the application OF communism and its subsequent failure. Save for hypotheses on paper, what are some actual examples of Communism. You're making a circular argument.
Read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Pinker, it discusses how this 'suffering' you reference has dropped drastically. People aren't enslaved anymore (but in Africa…), wars don't occur as frequently and don't result is total destruction and extinction of a people, and when they do (like WW2), it is rarely as frequent or as brutal as the conquest of rulers in the past.
No, there aren't. The "workers" have rejected the false premise of Communism, that they are some 'oppressed class' and the only reason they don't realize it is because of 'false consciousness'. It's an ad hoc explanation relying on 'these TRUE workers being the real workers'.
I never mentioned agriculture or masonry, but complex systems of governance. As in, a code of laws and a system of elections.
You're the one appealing to cavemen who didn't even understand cell theory being good examples of proper civilizations just because they were backwards and communistic.
Human beings, but that doesn't mean a hierarchy doesn't exist. Totalitarianism is not equivalent to corporatism, and fascism isn't beholden to the big businesses, the state rules over all.
Preserving the sanctity of an open forum to criticize ideas. It seems that Marxists are very fragile and will result to bans when they cannot address criticisms directly.
Correct. Nobody is going to give you anything, not now, not ever.
Nobody else will provide for you. You cannot get people to voluntarily hand you money today, or voluntarily hand you the berries they picked thousands of years ago, because the system isn't exploitative, you are just unwilling to work because you have your judgement clouded by a false sense of entitlement.
It's almost like we live within a greater social context or something and cavemen and modern humans have vastly different modes of production or something.
For one, cavemen had full control over and received the full benefit of their labor. When a caveman worked, he worked for his own benefit. A proletarian has no control over his work and receives no benefit from his labor, he merely sells his labor as a commodity to a capitalist in return for a wage, but he is alienated from the fruits of his actions.
Your sources are all revisionist. Give me real sources or fuck off.
what the fuck is my boss doing then
like who pays his bills
who do you think generates money in the business that he owns
owning a business isn't labour sweetie :)
Encyclopedias are more historically accurate than Marxist sophists, sorry.
Your boss doesn't provide for you. You work for him. He isn't a nanny state giving you 'free' shit.
His products generate the money, not your labour, by itself. Make as much shit for him as you want, the worth is determined by the market, not your labour.
Your concept of labour is out-dated. Being self-employed is work, you file your taxes and you state it as your occupation. It isn't physical labour, those jobs don't exist anymore as much as they used to. You aren't working in the coal mines or toiling away in some field, machines do that.
his constant righteous indignation has alway made him cringey
Not an argument. When are you going to post sources that are not revisionist?
Also Communism has worked. Read Parenti.
Who do you think makes the products user
Who do you think makes the products user
Go and make as many Haitian mud pies as you want for your boss, see how much he owes you when it doesn't sell because there is no demand. Your labour is worthless if demand is non-existent. It exists only within a marketplace of free trade. Oh, and you've already signed off any right to ownership when you signed onto the contract. I know you lot love reading SO much, but it's hilarious that you cannot even read the contracts for employment. Not surprising given how most of you probably aren't employed if you are so unfamiliar with contracts.
You really are dumb aren't you?
It's more of a response to an obviously pathetic argument, coming from an equally pathetic arguer.
Yes, Marx spends a portion of capital vol 1 adressing how employers and laborers enter into a free contract with one another on the marketplace. He also never once claimed that the price of goods was determined solely by the labor used to make it.
I know reading isn't your strong suit but you can at least try user.
nah. you're just a faggot
Read marginal utility theory, it's already debunked. Calculation problem isn't solved by 'muh computers'. It's why Communism is a relic of the past, dismissed as having failed itself and its believers.
Because you assume a marketplace of free trade exists in a Marxist paradigm.
It's an oxymoron.
Then it's a truism. Obviously it occurs, it still does. There is a difference between stating the obvious and presenting an alternative. The LTV has already been debunked, anyways.
Who do you think makes the products user
except this is bull shit. Would you care to address what has been said, or just spirt shit?
Except it can be
A network of workers who advertise the product, assemble it, harvest/mine it, refine it, research into its development, etc.
Oh, did you think Marx's "I did this" form of labour is still applicable? If you're a cashier, you are paid what you signed on for, not what you think you deserve. Employers don't care to entertain your false sense of entitlement.
Why did you not read or watch any of the links posted then deflect the question? Don't then complain when people don't think you're here in good faith.
Marxists have already formed responses to this
because he is unable to, and he knows it.
its quite pathetic actually
Extending your own rebuttal to your own source: it is bull shit. It cannot be done and there citing a poorly-formatted "study" by Cockshott, who everyone takes seriously because of the realistic and empirical cases with are constantly referenced to support the premises, is, as you said, 'bull shit'.
It's been debunked, they cannot exist beyond idealistic interpretations. Nobody takes them seriously for the same reason Lamarck was dismissed: his ideas do not work in practice, there is no supporting evidence.
Not a single source pointing to any successful implementation. Keep on making pseudo-historical unfalsifiable claims, though. You usually ought to have some evidence to point to instead of regurgitating the same circular arguments.
This coming from the lot accusing me of being a fascist without even defining it properly beyond conflations with corporatism.
Are you fucking retarded? How is me calling you a faggot because I didn't read all that shit related to idpol? And also, there wont be cashiers under communism because there isn't money you mongoloid subhuman. polite sage
Once again, no arguments and just fallacies and pretense. Simply claiming something is debunked is not an argument.
To your whole shitpost: 
Cool it with the class division based on sexuality, we are all workers here.
Well, there is. Do you want to burn all the money? Let me guess, do computers do that, too?
Keep on making those pseudo-historical claims.
wow this is pathetic
Care to argue you it is poorly formed?
you have failed to provide an argument
He's not, but keep making pseudo-intellectual unsubstantiated claims. You really ought to have an argument in response instead of just regurgitating the same
Sorry, I can't make you read the sources listed within. See:
Pretty clearly stated: read marginal utility theory, debunks the non-arguments with no supporting evidence.
Look at the conclusion. Sentence runs on into infinity. No continuation, poor charted tables.
I've already linked you to the wiki, it's full of criticisms that refute the central premise.
Literally not a single piece of supporting historical evidence to point to. He absolutely is.
This is not an argument. If you can't be bothered to make a single argument in good faith, then we have by definition won this debate: and and my person.
Marginal utility theory does exist, though. I even linked you to a page of criticisms of LTV. Keep on conveniently dismissing the existence of or refusing to read narratives that debunk your worldview, though.
Then claim I'm dismissing evidence… even though you have presented to such pieces of evidence corroborated by reality.
Once again, for more: en.wikipedia.org
In order to win a debate, your concepts have to be proven in reality. There is no such thing as a successful implementation of Marxist beliefs, they have all failed. None of anything you said exists in reality, it is pure fiction.
Do you realize that LTV is not an explanation of how things work in socialism/communism but how things work in capitalism?
don't come back with your marginalist rubbish until you have fully read and understand those, and the references.
I'm not sure why you're talking about "implemenation of Marxist beliefs" when the LTV was invented to describe the capitalist mode of production, and a reproducible commodity economy alone.
"Some people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be, because more time would be required in its production. The labour, however, that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour power. The total labour power of society, which is embodied in the sum total of the values of all commodities produced by that society, counts here as one homogeneous mass of human labour power, composed though it be of innumerable individual units. Each of these units is the same as any other, so far as it has the character of the average labour power of society, and takes effect as such; that is, so far as it requires for producing a commodity, no more time than is needed on an average, no more than is socially necessary."
"A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values."
So it can be seen that Marx's theory defines the commodity in a sense where society makes use of an item, not merely that the item exists. The LTV further only applies to reproducible commodities, so it does not apply to for example an "artisan" mud pie that some hipster at an auction spends $100k on. I got these two quotes literally from the first 3 pages of Capital vol 1.
because feels > reals
The still is from Breathless by Jean-Luc Godard.