Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism...


He's an american shilling for american globalism. Nothing new…just like every american he dreams of world domination and wants to shift attention on "cultural marxists" for the shit his own elected government is doing.

Self-important masturbation from a faggot that has never bothered to read anything.

It was more that a combination of repression and postwar Keynesian prosperity gutted the actual left while idpol was pushed to divide and co-opt the progressive movement. The establishment cherry picked progressive messages that didn't challenge the basis of their power and pushed them to drive political discourse away from class struggle and also to appear progressive while actually supporting and entrenching their hegemony both at home and abroad, and creating the illusion of political choice. Pic related.

Oh god is that what the guy who wrote that looks like?

t. someone who has a toddler's understanding of marxism

the guy could use some history lessons.
overthrowing capitalism is about overthrowing capital itself, not merely replacing the capitalists with different capitalists who we call workers. Communism is a mode of production, not a mode of management.

Wouldn't the extremely angry reaction to the criticism to gender and race politics and its unfairness not just in this tread or leftypol as whole but pretty much every known lefty forum mean hes got a point.

The Soviet Union transformed some of the most technologically and economically backward places in Europe and Asia and transformed them into advanced industrial societies, ultimately becoming the number 2 economy on the planet until the West broke it up in the 90s.

So, economic failure? Yeah the USSR wasn't the sum total of Socialism but it's clear that even on the surface that claim is ridiculous.

substantiate your claims pls


China turned out to be another huge economic failure as we can still see today.


It just doesn't make sense. I don't even know if any old marxists ever transitioned to identity politics completely, that seems hard to believe and I've never seen it demonstrated. Marxism is a critique of the capitalist system as one that was unsustainable. Gender and race have nothing to do with capitalism being sustainable, or current society being sustainable.

I don't even see how he makes the leap. What does he think the overthrow of capitalists was supposed to accomplish? How is this related to the overthrow of white, straight cis-gendered patriarchy? What common goal would the two accomplish, because I don't see it? It seems like such an ignorant dismissal of the notion that Marxists have ever had a coherent set of beliefs or preferences, just rendering them anarchists that want to attack something.

Laos also has a communist government and is experiencing tremendous economic growth. Then there's Cuba's economic accomplishments despite a blockade lasting three quarters of a century.


Vietnam is also having an economic boom but from my experiences here the very large government sector is harming growth since there are things like the military owning private companies that they have soldiers work at but given that there isnt enough work soldiers only work half a day yet get paid about twice what a normal civilian would get paid for a full day.

Why do reactionary tech virgins dislike women so much?

blame years of cointelpro and liberal cultural hegemony, not leftism.
also obligatory

this is accurate. the rest is the usual garltural margzizm bullshit

"thoughts?" = inflammatory shit?

Writings of ex-marxists like Peter Hitchens and everything that went on in the UK lefty organisations. All of it seemed 100% identity politics to promote mass emigration to punish the white native population for being white.

LMAO SPOOKS NERD. But no really cite your sources on this one buddy

Again, sources please, sources which show countries getting worse off due to having a socialist revolution

all economic battlegrounds between communism and capitalism

East Berlin v West Berlin
North Korea(Huge Advantage Starting off) v South Korea

I've heard plenty of Peter Hitchens talking, but never read his books. I would say, at the risk of sounding like I'm just claiming special access to "true marxist tradition", that it doesn't seem to follow from classic Marxist theory that gender, sex and race politics would replace a critique of capitalism, or that there would be any reason to switch tactics based on socialist defeats/failures in the 20th century.

I've seen in various cases the argument that marxists switched to idpol because they wanted to destroy western culture, and then swoop in and take over. One problem with this is that idpol has just become corporate fashion now, it's not subversive to capitalism, and the other problem is that not many people were relaying a marxist line of thinking on the left for several decades, so if idpol was ever a front for marxism it isn't anymore. Many people who think of themselves as radicals, including the leaders of these groups, are purely interested in idpol. This is the main reason I'm confused by the idea that Marxists all switched to idpol, because it doesn't subvert capitalism, and if it was supposed to subvert capitalism it has been proven ineffective.

I think I've seen other arguments based on the notion Marxism is about equality, and having realized that capitalism is an indomitable fact of nature the Marxists decided that they needed to create equality elsewhere. But that is clearly not true just by reading Marx's theories, he was not primarily concerned with equality anymore than the classical liberals of the enlightenment were concerned primarily with equality, or equal outcomes as it is usually understood.

So ultimately the claim from the google guy just seems meaningless. He is just reproducing the common rhetorical nod to Marxism as the boogeyman that has its spies everywhere trying to subvert society. It's the Cold War, but the socialist states collapsed so now there is just a viral infection of enemies out to destroy the social fabric of the west.

idpol was tailor fit for capitalism. I cant imagine a better way to divide people yet also promote consumption.


Mao and Dilma Roussef cooked the books.

China and Brazil are still human rights and currency violators.

Its actually really sad to see how the Brazil bubble popped. I think it would have been good to have a strong country in South America

Hes a fucking tard

But that's bullshit, actually.

You're on Holla Forums, I think you're lost

Wow what a surprise.

Russia goes from a medieval backwater to a global superpower, 2nd in GDP and GDP/capita, major increase in literacy, infant weight, average calorie consumption, life expectancy, major scientific achievements in terms of physics, engineering, and medicine, etc. All of which takes a nose dive in 1991.

A majority of former East Germans say they preferred life under communism.

You mean this South Korea (pic related)?

This guy is now considering suing Google. What a little snowflake.

That's just protecting his material interests. This isn't like getting banned from a forum or having your twitter account suspended. He probably lost a 6 figure job.

It didn't promise to be economically superior, at least not according to Marx. He said capitalism would always out-produce socialism, which is one of the reasons why they couldn't live side by side and socialism had to be global. It was only later that some poindexter started saying that a planned economy would be rational and optimal and shit, and I'd very much like to know who it was. Regardless, you can at least make the case that socialist economies are more efficient, but not anywhere near as productive.

Nothing surprising, guy looks like the archetypal Google employee

Nothing to see here guys. Just another example of how involuntary celibacy can fuel extremism.

Yea, just some white guy lashing out.
Can't blame him though, if I had to deal with the cancer that is white women I'd probably go insane too.

This quote was most likely the single determinant factor in him getting fired. It was solid evidence that the guy was full of all sorts of "mah cultural marxism, mah frankenfurter school" nonsense. And he published his post at a company that his school already knows to be a primary disseminator of cultural marxism. He knew what he was doing. But yes, BLM and AntiFa are doing what the Communists originally wanted the working class in general to do in America.



Don't you get it user, corporations are only bad when they're not on my side and/or pushing my ideology, otherwise I'm a bootlicker extraordinaire.

I know, it's just funny watching Holla Forums finding any excuse to support Google because 'yeah well he was probably a racist Holla Forums virgin anyway'

It's why I take this place even less seriously than Holla Forums, at the end of the day there are no actual principles, there's no true hatred of corporations or the culture they breed, it's just an ideological war no different from the dumbfuck left vs. right shit we see every day, only posed with flowery language and spook memery from college students who think they represent the working class.

Because at the end of the day this boards identity derives from being not!Holla Forums - and if that entails ball fondling some soulless megacorp, so be it

I was passing by but… wtf are you even saying. Show me one (1) post here that defends google

Left-liberalism is a total inversion of Marxism since it aims to change the cultural/social superstructure without a corresponding change in the relafions of production. It has always been this idealist notion that we can have a sphere of equality and freedom disconnected from capital, and just let the bourgeoisie do its own thing. The liberal conception had something to offer back when the welfare state was dominant in the West, but economic reality in eth last few decades has thoroughly debunked this, and only desperate groups cling to it. Admitting defeat and getting back to class politics is traumatizing to the inert liberal-left, but it's the only chance we've got.

lol as if these 2 retards give a shit about what people actually say
the point is to "seed" an idea (in this instance it's "leftypol supports google!") and try to grow it
if one fails then try another and so on and so on until one catches on
truth and reality are unimportant

"Leftypol"? Literally who? This place has everything from former pol/yps, people that think NotSoc is socialism, unironic NazBols, Trots, Communalists, r/socialism/ rejects to Anarchists, Egoists, Technocrats, AnFems, etc.
There is no leftypol hivemind.

What part of Not. A. Hivemind. don't you understand?

Why do reactionaries and liberal-soon-to-be-reactionary retards always talk about these "Marxists" who turned to gender and race dynamic directly as a response to the failure of communism but never name a single one? And if they do it's always "The Frankfurt School", never a particular thinker or work or passage therein, and if it's a quote it's never sourced or traceable.

Why do virgin men hate women so much?

is it really that difficult of a question to answer for you?

The same reason virgin women hate men.