what's with all the boards that isn't the main three dying off ?
Other urls found in this thread:
having boards specifically for marxists and anarchists is dumb anyway
/marx/ was flooded by faggots who desperately want to believe China and Russia are actually socialist states, and they are also for one small sect of socialism, /anarcho/ got filled with the types of people who heard "anarchy means evil and chaos, look at Somalia!" and thought "woah that sounds p cool", hence the politically illiterate screencaps from there that blackflagfags post every now and then. No idea about /cyber/ though.
Not sure about /cyber/ though.
t. anarkiddie who went to /marx/ and got btfo
/cyber/ was kiled by illiterate Holla Forumscuck dipshits that wouldn't stop talking about how niggers and bitches ruin everything and drove everyone that was worth a damn out, just like I suspect is happening to the rest of the site
Nah /anarcho/ died because everyone there migrated to 0chan (or here)
/marx/'s BO seriously believes that China is socialist. Like it or not, this is a contributor to your dead board.
china is still socialist though
purely? no. not at all. It's more capitalist than anything, easy.
No coherence or discipline in the supposed unique function of their board so they got to the all-sorts section and just wallow there (this place). /marx/ is a case where posters have discipline but nobody is insane enough to strengthen the numbers of the 5 total people on earth who take Grover Furr seriously and happen to be autistic enough to also spend time on image boards.
Danemark is probably closer to socialism than China at this point. There is more to communism than putting flowers on Karl Marx's grave every year.
It was never anything other than capitalist.
The problem here is that you are embroiled in a raging war of definitions and semantics. We may ask ourselves 'what do we mean by socialism?' but we are repeatedly finding that different factions of the left are using different lexicons and writers altogether!
Saying that welfare capitalism isn't socialism is semantics?
Stop lying to yourself, faggot. China is not socialist in the ML sense, it is not socialist in the Marxist sense, it is not socialist in the Anarchist sense, and it is not socialist in the Market Socialist sense. One can draw no parallel between it and societies seeking to build socialism; however, you can easily compare its economic system to any capitalist nation, as its system is privately owned capitalism.
This isn't semantics, this is a couple embarrassments with an ameriblob tier understanding of politics going "its socialism because its socialism because its socialism!" whilst everyone else, even non-socialists, have a giggle at them.
To be fair, Ismail never said that China is real existing socialism, he said that China is still on the path to socialism and that their capitalism works somewhat different than regular free market capitalism. He also said they aren't imperialist.
I'm beginning to think the level at which people consider you a boogeyman on chans is directly proportional to how good your content is.
Leftcoms know this feel
Isn't that what has been happening with lainchan for a good time already?
Except blackfags are universally shit
Some might argue that 'socialism' is merely what the majority of leftists here call 'social democracy', i.e. a subset of liberalism. This language pattern was found in The Ego and His Own. Regardless, you are still operating within the lexicon that you're using.
I think that you need to read what some of the chinaboos are saying about China. docs.google.com
What the point of having other boards if they are just Holla Forums with a different name?
Yeah, they are investing massive amounts of money in Africa out of pure altruism, and menacing everyone who approach those islands with a shitload of oil just to preserve the environment.
Everyone who use the term "anti-imperialism" unironically should be sent to gulag or fuck off to Reddit. Everytime they utter something it's like when I look at a Holla Forumsyp post and can't tell if it's genuine or satire.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
And they'd be wrong.
You should read what the actual Chinese left are saying about China.
/anarcho/ moved to 0chan
A quick look at the thread where he answers questions on his board makes your post a lie. Like the ridiculous revisionist he is, he has the audacity to claim that "There is no such as thing as Chinese imperialism. China is a socialist state…"
Holla Forums is a good idea, i like that people can make their own custom boards.
The problem is it usually ends up with the majority of users posting only in say about the top 20 boards.
There are now thousands of dead ghost boards that litter the place.
This kind of thing is just driving more and more people off this site into twitter.
Can you even make an argument?
So then what is 'socialism' if not just a botched attempt at radical democracy (with ultimately-liberal values) for Ismail? If so, most people here cannot call themselves 'socialists'.
Sorry friend, but words do not mean what you just like them to mean. I don't even know why you are posting, since that doesn't even apply to China.
"the company here sure is getting annoying, better go outside and dive into a sewer"
We should try to repopulate these. Also /lit/ is my favorite board and is very slow now a days. I´m not saying flood it, but those of you that actually like reading should give it a look once in a while.
This one? There is nothing better than an anarchist ready to fight and die to defend intellectual property.
Chans don't lend themselves to the idea of making boards just because so they all die also Holla Forums has been bleeding users to no end.
That cap is just abysmal.
IMO a major part of the problem is board culture. Another, as far as Holla Forums is concerned, is that any board that anyone might have an interest in is full to the brim with dipshit polbastards that squawk endlessly about cucks and niggers and kikes and no one wants to be around that.
I really think the idiots that threw a massive bitchbaby tantrum to keep us here are severely mentally retarded.
Never read his work, why is he bad?
It wasn't ever particularly active after Holla Forums was created
Because he accepts the official declarations of Stalins' government as a truthful source of what happened in reality.
I don't think that's an inherently bad thing as long as he uses other sources to back up his claim.
and good riddance, too
Holla Forums is dying, you idiot. This place has gone down the shitter ever since Hotwheels left. Jim is the harbinger of imageboard cleansing. Once Jim's CIA handlers give him the go-ahead, everone on Holla Forums will be rounded up and turned into industrial glue.
Because 8ch is shit and dead.
It just makes sense for those boards whose userbase is inherently smaller than a this boards to eventually migrate here. You can make any post you would've made on /marx/ or /anarcho/ with fat more people to talk about it even if they aren't the same tendency just having more discussion keeps boards alive and growing.
Not true. He uses Soviet government documents, some which were previously secret, amidst other primary sources (many of which he helped translate into English for the first time) to show the truth about what happened in the USSR under Stalin.
Noam Chomsky does the same thing by using US government dox to prove that its imperialist n shiet; to tell the truth, anarkiddies and leftcoms have been using the hearsay of anti-communist dissidents, Western reactionary bourgeois media and others opposed to Stalin government as proof that he was a le evil red fascist for decades. It would be nice if they acquainted themselves with the material that exists from the Soviet gov rather then dismissing it all as propaganda that cannot be trusted, as if there was some kind of long-ploy to dupe the Western public by keeping secret documents that might exonerate Stalin and then releasing them.
The Russian government has been anti-Stalinist and revisionist since Khrushchev's speech in 1956 and is now openly anti-communist and conservative. I think it stretches the imagination to think that there is a plot to make Stalin a good boi what has leaked out disputing the revisionist-liberal/reactionary-Trotskyist narrative has largely come out by chance.
While adamantly maintaining that Furr is a conspiracy theorist the Left-wing of anti-communism steady advances their own counter-conspiracies where Stalin is acting according to his own malevolent intentions but never really leaving a record of them or his supposed crimes and deleting any evidence along the way. Meanwhile, all the men who came after Stalin were secret Stalinists pursuing Stalin's agenda from beyond the grave, condemning Stalin merely for show, and hiding the terrible truth about the Stalinist era.
The left-wing of anti-communism is not so different from the Solzhenitsyn-Conquest out reactionary wing of anti-communism that once maintained that because the USSR was a "totalitarian state" readers would have to take their horror stories on faith since the state repressed much of the evidence that might've been available in a "free" society. In this respect, conspiracy theories revolving around the evil of Stalin and the personalities around him fit well into the left-wing of anti-communism even if it articulates it less openly and less readily.
It's very telling that for the vitriol directed against Furr that the left-wing of anti-communism never addresses the evidence or the sources that he presents in his books. I've never met a left-wing critic of Furr's work who wasn't ML who betrayed even the faintest sign that he had read Furr's work in-depth. He's always just dismissed as "crazy" right out of hand, and so far it seems that the left-wing of anti-communism has yet to even engage with his arguments let alone the hundreds of pages of primary source material that he presents, which is much harder to argue against.
It's funny how these people claim they are critical about bourgeois narratives about the USSR but they are behind even bourgeois liberal anti-communist academics like J.Arch Getty who wrote in the 80s that Stalin had less executive power then Margaret Thatcher. So, what are we to think about that? That the Western anti-Stalinist
Left seems to be behind anti-communist students of Soviet history from decades ago? I would maintain that it shows that their claims to be critical of bourgeois narratives about the Stalin is a sham and that their criticism of him isn't less ideological in nature then how they see the defense of Stalin by MLs.
Maybe I'm going a little bit to far here, as there are a lot of history brainlets on the Left who simply take what they know about the USSR from popular culture, but I'm certain there are a fair number of people on the Left who know better who will never stop their anti-communist propaganda activities under the mask of anti-Stalinism.
/cyber/ went to shit because they went style over substance hard as well as Holla Forumsacks trying to appropriate it with "WE'RE THE REAL PUNKS". Also some asshat that is literally a no-fun faggot comes into some threads he doesn't like for some reason.
Have you checked /gnussr/? Well it's dead too anyway.
We just plain need more people. On the one hand, the top few boards have activity at a nice level, neither too much nor too little. On the other, every other damn board is ded. I'd rather Holla Forums get too fast than let those other promising boards lie fallow.
/marx/ isn't dead. Post there and you are guaranteed to get a quality answer from Ismail within a few hours. I like that Marx is so slow because it serves as a great source because threads stay up practically forever.
ARE THEY BROTHERS
I agree with you, but everytime I saw someone talking about "anti-imperialism", it was always retarded tankies, no exceptions.
True anti-imperialists don't use this term, but talk about capitalism and the state, as they are the natural driving force behind "imperialism", and analyze them. It is in every state interest to expand, ultimately.
For me, "anti-imperialism" means "anything that is capitalist but that I still like because it isn't the West", merely a buzzword to reduce cognitive dissonance, and spare you the effort to think and inform yourself about geopolitics (a bit like the abuse of "fascist" by liberals).
And I swear, the first time I saw the term being used, I thought it was an ironic meme, kinda like "revisionist". But I've underestimated tankie retardation I guess.
/anarcho/ moved here : 0ch.org
Kek, Rafiq bullied Ismail on a regular basis back in the revleft days.
Boy you gonna be picking your jaw up from the floor when it turns out they were an Engels-Stirner duo.
Why the fuck would they move to an even deader site?
Someone upload this to leftyboru with tags